2014-2015 EA-18G EIS Scoping Comments

(b)(6)
1685
Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284
1st comment. I
(b)(6)
1686
Coupeville, WA 98239
You know and we know that the Growlers do not belong on Whidbey Island
(b)(6)
1687
THE BEST OLFER IN THE GAME WANTS ALTERNATIVE THREE. MOST OLF
ACTION POSSIBLE (FOR NOW)! WE OLF FANS EARNED IT! WE BEAT THE SAN
COUPEVILLEBEY'S FOURTY WHINERS IN A CLOSE RUN GAME, NOW WE'LL RUN
RIGHT OVER ANY BRONCOS IN THE WAY! WE OUTSCORED COER BEFORE,
WE'LL DO IT AGAIN!
(b)(6)
1688
Eastsound, WA 98245
We live in the San Juan Islands, noted for their natural beauty and therefore attracting
thousands of tourists each year. In fact our economy is largely built on tourism. The
Growler jets make such an incredible level of noise that people on the ground
experiencing their overflight suffer a fight or flight response. Some people are physically
knocked down. Not only is this noise affecting the quality of life of people living in the
islands, the high decibel level of noise is impacting health. This hurts our people
physically and emotionally, and it is bad for the economy as well. Our first request would
be to stop these flights. If not possible, then conduct the flights where there are no
people. If not possible, then do something to mitigate the noise. We understand that the
engines of both the Growler and the 747 are built by GE, and that the actual jets using
these engines are built by Boeing. 747s have three times the thrust of Growlers, yet the
747s are much quieter. One way to mitigate the noise is to go to these quieter engines, or
otherwise modify the current engines. "Shock and awe" is not meant to be used on our
own citizens, but that is the result of the current flights. In addition, pilots need to stay
within the approved areas for flights. They are frequently flying outside these areas and
frequently at lower altitudes. Finally, let's get the hush houses up and running. We would
hope that our tax dollars could be better spent than preparing for war, but if these planes
are a must, then the noise has to be eliminated. Thank you.
(b)(6)
1689
Port townsend , WA 98368

We are a family of four, we live on the north end of the quimper peninsula. The whidbey
naval air station, coupville remote airfield, along with the the assosciated flight operations
neccesary to support the mission are welcome by all in our family. But beyond our
"approval" we understand the need and value of a well trained, well equiped navy. For
your demographics, no military background, children ages 14 and 9. Waterfront location
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
1690
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368

This new plan to nearly double the amount of aircraft and double the amount of noise
pollution is absolutely intolerable to Port Townsend .Since these test have increased from
the summer , we have endured many noise filled nights due to the aircraft and their
training on Whidbey Island. Another alternative must be found to the continued use of
Whidbey Island for this jet training , Somewhere with less population density . These jets
are extremely loud and it is my understanding that the Navy intends to increase the
amount of aircraft and therefore the amount of noise , The Navy is destroying our quality
of life , I suggest you go to Guam or somewhere and play war , best regards (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
1691
ANacortes, WA 98221
I live in the flt. Path for these air craft. Yes they make noise But I feel it is a necessary
part of life. If they want more Growlers let them have them. They have to be trained
somewhere. Might as well be good guys in our neighborhood!
(b)(6)
1692
Chimacum, WA 98325
I have reviewed the proposed action and believe it is a safe and prudent thing to do. I
fully support anything we can do to ensure a secure future for the U.S. Navy in Western
Washington. Additionally, I welcome any measures that can be taken to provide for
adequate and appropriate flight training, to include practice landings and OLF Coupeville,
for pilots. Without this practice, the capabilities, efficiency, and professionalism of our
service members will diminish. The amount of jobs this action will create and maintain is
substantial, both for existing citizens and the new families that move to our area.
(b)(6)
1693
Lopez Island, WA 98261

I live in the Lopez Village, an area supposedly well away from EA18G growler flight
paths. I regularly hear and see EA-18G growlers flying overhead and they disturb both
my sleep and my business (I am a consultant and need to speak with colleagues and
clients on the phone regularly). The EIS must consider all impacts -- including but not
limited to loss of property values, loss of business, stress and health impacts to humans
and other animals -- of EA-18G growler flights that are along official flight paths as well as
flights that deviate from official flight paths.
(b)(6)
1694
Anacortes, WA 98221
PLEASE - no more noisy and annoying fighter jet flights over Anacortes, there are plenty
of other areas you can use.
(b)(6)
1695
Port Townsend, WA 98368

It is hard to comprehend why training flights MUST be scheduled for later than 9:00 pm.
There were a number of flights in the recent past at 10:30-11:00pm. If it gets dark too late
in the summer, then schedule training for winter and put the planes to bed by 9:00pm.
The planes are incredibly loud and disruptive!
(b)(6)
1696
I appreciate much "the DoN is not considering alternative locations for FCLP training, or
squadron relocation". Good. We won.
(b)(6)
not available
not available, NJ 08822
I oppose expansion of whidby airfield. the usa cannot continue a posture of telling
everybody in the entire world what to do. its time to keep our tax dollars to fix up our
bridges, our roads. send the planes somewhere else. there are plenty of other airfields
you can use. I don't have a phone so had to put in just any old numbers. you should not
require phones. not everybody has one these days, but you do have email to get to write
to somebody.
1697
(b)(6)
1698
Sequim, WA 98382
I support the men and women who do this work to keep our country safe! Please don't
restrict their training and their work.
(b)(6)
1699
Oak Harbor, WA 98277

We have no problem with the EA-18G Growler operations in the area. Keep up the good
work and keep them flying here.
(b)(6)
1700
I live under one of the pathways used by Navy jets to fly into the OLF. In fact, they turn
onto the final approach over my house. I've lived here since September of 2000. The
noise of these jets does not bother me. It is infrequent and not too loud. I was able to buy
my home for $196,000 because the jets flew over and some people don't like that. That's
fine with me. I paid considerably less than half of what I would have paid were the jets not
present. I could never have afforded a quality home on over an acre of land, with a
120-degree view of Puget Sound, any other way. Am I sorry? Hell no! I received a great
deal and the real estate agent was very clear about why the property was so cheap. I
have not had a moments regret or resentment about the noise of the Navy operations
around my home. The people who are pushing to have the Navy stop flight operations in
the area are people who got into their land on the cheap and are now trying to increase
the resale value of their property at the expense of their neighbors. They are self-serving
and disingenuous. They talk about the negative impact of jet noise on local animal life.
Nonsense! This place is crawling with deer. Most days we have as many as five deer in
our front yard. This afternoon we watched three bald eagles cavorting over the beach.
There are rabbits, raccoons, quail, crows and dozens of other types of birds in the
neighborhood. We have frogs, toads, salamanders and turtles here. If they havent lived
here all the time the Navy was flying, then they must have been drawn to the
neighborhood by the Navy noise! You area welcome to drop by my home during flight
operations to form your own impressions about the noise. In the meantime, please don't
let the hopeful profiteers ruin everything for the vast majority of the citizens of this area
who overwhelmingly support Naval operations.
(b)(6)
1701

21 September 1942, the official comissioning date of NAS Whidbey Is., is probably the
greatest singular event the Dept. of War did for the defense of the United States.
NASWI's location is valuable beyond words. Hundreds of thousands of airmen have
trained and gone to war out of this base. We need more EA-18G aircraft to protect this
great country of ours. The greatest aid these fliers have is the aircraft carrier. To survive
the most difficult arrested landings, repetitive practice landings MUST be performed. OLF
Coupeville is a no-brainer!! It is close to NASWI saving fuel and flight time by not going
east of the Cascades to perform FCLPs. I am proud to have these and all aircraft flying in
my neighborhood. Keep up the good work and GO HAWKS!!
(b)(6)
1702
Puyallup, WA 98371
As a former long-time resident of Port Townsend and Jefferson County employee, I
would like to lend my voice of support for all operations undertaken by the air operations
at NAS Whidbey. I have had the honor and privilege of watching these public servants
and warriors in the course of their duties for years. I always welcomed the sight and
sound that accompanied them, even through the middle of the night! Their mission in our
armed forces is critical and without training in all types of environments (including
low-level and at night) they will not be prepared to execute their mission in a real-world
environment should they be called on to do so. The men and women of NAS Whidbey
Island have my full support and I would be more than happy to have my name and
contact info made available for anyone and everyone who would like to discuss it.
#Merica!
(b)(6)
1703
Port Hadlock, WA 98339

I live in Port Hadlock and fully support our military operations. I welcome the sound of jets
which give me peace of mind knowing we have superior protection so close to home.
Thank you for your service!
(b)(6)
1704
Sequim, WA 98382
I lived on South Fidalgo Island for 25 years and am very familiar with NAS Whidbey air
operations and their impact. I'd like to make several points regarding noise: (1)Noise
modeling by drawing average decibel contour lines does not adequately address the
impact on real people of aircraft overflights. Anyone bothered by a EA-6B is going to be
bothered by a EA-18G. The number of flights and not an average decibel level is a better
measure. Besides, the increased low frequency noise emitted by the EA-18G may well
make their perceived sound louder. (2)Previous EIS have compared a baseline of air
operations to future operations essentially by extrapolating the number of aircraft. I hope
that with the major planned expansion of the NW Training Range Complex some effort
will be made to address the potential for increased air operations due to shifting of
training to NAS Whidbey that was previously done by squadrons on temporary
deployments to other facilities. The NWTT EIS claims no increase in flights but I find this
implausible. (3)The Navy has found that the shift from P-3 to P-8 aircraft will have no
impact because of their similar noise profiles and the fact that the overwhelming amount
of noise is produced by the Growlers. I think this minimizes the human perception of
noise. The prop-driven P-3 is instantly distinguishable from a jet. When a jet is heard it
will take longer to distinguish whether it is a P-8 or EA-18G and people's awareness and
irritation levels will be increased. As I said in my first point, averaging decibel levels
simply is not an adequate way in this situation to describe people's perception of their
noise environment. The addition of the P-8 aircraft will have an amplifying effect on
people's noise sensitivity. (4)Having lived for 25 years under Whidbey flight paths as well
as working outdoors in Anacortes I can't overstate the impact that pilots and flight paths
have on noise. On flight paths: while the tracks and altitudes for FCLP and other
tight-circling patterns are necessarily fairly fixed, some noise reduction could be achieved
for arriving aircraft by entering the immediate airspace from a higher altitude and perhaps
by adjusting the turn radii. This would especially help reducing noise over Anacortes
where arriving aircraft often pass over the city at quite low elevations and make a sharp
turn toward NAS Whidbey. Regarding pilots, the Navy itself has in the past answered
noise complaints by saying that the problem was caused by pilots not following the
bases's noise-mitigation guidelines. It would not seem that difficult or expensive to set up
a network of decibel meters that could be automatically monitored and compared to radar
flight tracks or some other method of matching specific aircraft to a noise event to insure
closer adherence to flight policies rather than waiting for noise complaints to rise before
addressing the issue. (5)Since so much of the noise issue is related to FCLP activity, an
adjustment could be made to air crew deployments. Crews could conduct some of their
final FCLP training by temporarily deploying to another base. By delaying their arrival on
the carrier by two or three days and perhaps having them depart the carrier earlier than
the other air crews their deployment time would not have to be lengthened. Reducing by
3 or 4 the number of days a squadron is engaged in intensive FCLP training at NAS
Whidbey and OLF Coupeville would mitigate much of the noise issues raised by
increasing the number of aircraft at NAS Whidbey.
(b)(6)
1705

I am strongly opposed to more EA-18 training activities at the Whidbey Island alternative
field because no EIS has been submitted. More noise and pollution is unnecessary with
the vast number of alternatives the Navy has at its disposal. It would also be a despoiling
act for the West Coast wild bird flyway and the increasing population in this area.
(b)(6)
1706
Anacortes, WA 98221
We are and have been residents of Skagit County for the past 15 years and we are
completely opposed to any increase of Growler aircraft and increased training at NAS
Whidbey. The extreme noise from their constant low level flights while doing landings and
take-offs and flying under nearly full power with wheels and landing gear down is so
mentally and emotionally stressful, we have actually considered moving. We moved here
knowing the impact in 1999 but it seems to only ncrease each year. It appears there has
never been any efforts made by NAS to modify or minimize their desegregation to the
residents and this living environment. Try getting to sleep at 11:00pm with them flying or
try to rest and recover from an illness during the day or to carry on a conversation when
they are constantly flying over your house or teaching a class and having to stop lecturing
every 5 to 10 minutes etc. Enough is enough - please no increases and instead limit,
reduce, relocate those that are here to help bring some sanity back to living in this area. It
(b)(6)
is totally out of hand today. Thank you,
(b)(6)
1707

I have lived on or very near USN flight operations for the last 41 years, and I have no
measurable hearing loss from the ops. I hear jets above my house several times a week,
and at different times of the day and evening and I have no problem with the noise. I
enthusiastically welcome the Navy jets to NAS Whidbey Island Washington. We need to
train pilots and this is the best solution to that problem.
(b)(6)
1708
Anacortes, WA 98221
I can't tell you how much the noise upsets me when the "jets" are flying over, anywhere
near, and around my house in Anacortes. It is constant stress, frustration and anger,
especially at night. When I was working and couldn't sleep at night due to jet noise, I
hoped that if I got in a wreck driving to work the next day, it would be with a family
member of whoever was in charge at Whidbey NAS, who was responsible for making the
route over populated areas. Trying to give positive feedback: how about the unpopulated
areas in E. Washington for practice? or out over the ocean? I already hate the noise from
the current contingent, so obviously, I am absolutely opposed to any additional jets being
assigned to the area. Over the years, the propaganda from the base has been that the
"new" jets are quieter. Ha - that is a sick joke...I'm glad I'm not a teacher trying to teach
school, or a speaker at any event, or a surgeon during a procedure when the jets are
flying. Please consider alternative practice areas for these planes. Thanks for the
opportunity to provide feedback - I hope you're not just going thru the motions, but will
truly try to find solutions to the noise problems.
(b)(6)
1709
lopez island, WA 98261

Providing that you avoid afterburner exercises low over the Islands especially at night,
you have my blessing to train with as many aircraft as you can acquire. Growler noise is
part of the sound of freedom. When I described the mission of a Growler, a liberal person
appeared interested. Maybe an informed community might help the effort.
(b)(6)
1710
It seems to me that an additional 22 aircraft all with the same noise level inherent in the
original design wouldn't alter the EIS that much other than to increase the amount of
aircraft using the OLF. Having second hand knowledge of the F18 by means of
association with the MacDonnel Douglas (now Boeing)St. Louis plant the Navy should
give serious consideration to retrofitting all EA18G's with noise suppressors. A retrofit
guaranteed to bring the decibel level down to
(b)(6)
1711

I support 100% the command decision to move additional growlers to NAS Whidbey for
additional training . The more highly trained our Naval personnel are, the safter we all
are. Air support is vital to the safety of our ground troops and a little noise is a very small
price to pay for the freedom we enjoy in the U.S. I have many fellow vets who are alive
today because of air support from naval operations. The hoise does not bother me a bit.
It is the sound of freedom.
(b)(6)
1712

I want to thank our Military for the protection they provide us. We are currently facing
threats made against the United States by ISIS and others. With much unrest in the
World , it is not the time to cut back on antthing that would provide protection for our
Nation. I support the Whidbey Island Base and the EA-18G Growler and I THANK THEM
for putting their lives on the line for we fellow Americans!!
(b)(6)
1713
Bellingham, WA 98226
Keep the boys current, and fly all you want! Try and avoid the quiet hours over homes,
from 2300 - 0700. Thank you for serving!
(b)(6)
1714
Friday Harbor, WA 98250

I live in Friday Harbor, WA and sometimes hear the Growlers from Whidbey base. To me
they are the sound of freedom. I support the military! To be prepared our Navy must
practice.
(b)(6)
1715

We strongly support the Growler program The Noise is NOT and issue
(b)(6)
1716
orcas, WA 98280
I am definitely in favor of allowing the navy to have the EA-18G growler as well as
expand the area to repair/store same. We also have a place on Whidbey close to the
navy airbase and the noise is not any problem. We need America defended. Yes, Yes,
Yes to the growler.
(b)(6)
1717
I find it disingenuous of the U.S. Navy to solicit input concerning the impact of the
EA-18G on the citizens of the United States who reside under their dangerous path. I
provided my perspective as the EIS process commenced, and will again. I believe it to be
immoral, and unamerican, for the United States military to consider the thousands of
households of the Puget Sound collateral damage as a justification to protect our country.
I was born in Coupeville 68 years ago and my grandparents arrived in 1921. While jets
practicing at the OLF field have always been an annoyance the transition to the Growler
is making life here, in our sacred National Historical Reserve, unbearable. More....24
more planes to torture us? I am quite a sane person who has developed such extreme
trauma that I no longer stay at my home of 38 years when they fly. I must leave in
accordance of the flight schedule which is often inaccurate. In fact, if the Navy does not
cease flying at the OLF as a result of the EIS I will be seeking a home off the Island. FYI,
I live directly under the flight pattern on the East hill of Ebey's Prairie. I am not alone.
That our defense is above the law causes me to loose faith in our country. This is no
democracy this is, as General President Eisenhower warned us of, an industrial military
complex. Please do the right thing and relocate the Growlers to China Lake where you
own one million acres.
(b)(6)
1718

Gentleman, I favor a strong military, and support freedom. A strong military requires
training. Bring it on... (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1719

While emphasis should be made that the flight paths are NOT directly over residential
areas of the San Juan Islands, everyone needs to accept that the Growlers are an
unmistakable part of the NAS Whidbey. Sit back and enjoy the airshow and get some
earplugs if it is that bad!
(b)(6)
1720
LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 98261

I support the Navy operation at NAS Whidbey. The Growler training is NO problem to me.
I enjoy having the aircraft flying in the area. It makes me proud to be an American. The
complainers should be ashamed of themselves.
(b)(6)
1721

Never in my lifetime has our country and our world been so threatened by ISIS, the
Taliban, and other terrorist groups. We need our military stationed here and abroad to
have all resources to protect us. This includes NAS Whidbey. What little noise and
environmental impact of the Growler aircraft is a small price to pay for our freedom.
(b)(6)
1722
Friday Harbor , WA 98250

As a 20 year retired Military Veteran I whole heartedly support military flight training
within the Puget Sound. Our military pilots learn from training,the sounds of aircraft in
flight are a welcome price for our safety and the pilots continued proficiency.
(b)(6)
1723

We are in totally support of NASWI and their use of OLF and Ault Field for training. They
are fine men and women and exceptional citizens. We are proud to have them here.
(b)(6)
Please bring more!
(b)(6)
1724

Growler noise is little price to pay for you protecting us..keep up the good work!! Don't
listen to the complainers, they have nothing else to do....
(b)(6)
1725
Friday harbor, WA 98250

That noise as they say it is what's called the sound of freedom, god bless those pilots,
keep on keeping on thank you for your service.
(b)(6)
1726
GREENBANK, WA 98253
I am strongly in favor of continuing flight operations at the Navy Outlying Field on
Whidbey Island. People who are opposed to aircraft noise have only themselves to blame
for their ignorance or carelessness in choosing to live close to longstanding aircraft
facilities. I am just thankful those aircraft have white stars on their wings instead of red
stars.
(b)(6)
1727

It always makes me feel proud and safe to feel the military aircraft presence occasionally
exercise over my head. You cannot be prepared if you do not practice.
(b)(6)
1728

I've lived on Whidbey and now in the San Juan Islands. I thank the "sound of freedom"
for being able to enjoy this area. The noise is a small price to pay for this lifestyle
(b)(6)
1729

Freedom is not free. I we expect our young men and women to maintain proficiency in air
operations, they need to be able to continue to fly. It is a minor inconvenience if they
happen to fly briefly in the very immediate area. I hardly notice any noise issues, even
with my new hearing aids. The Navy has always been a valued and respectful neighbor.
Let's not tie their hands in planning training missions.
(b)(6)
1730

I support additional Growler airfield operations. I have not observed any noticeable or
negative impacts from the historical Growler operations over San Juan Island, and I have
been here since 1978. Respectfully, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1731

We support the Growler aircraft at Whidbey NAS and consider it an honor to have this
base near our island. We are ashamed that our neighbors are complaining about
something as insignificant as jet noise while people in the world are suffering horribly
under tyranny. God bless the US Navy.
(b)(6)
1732

It should be noted that the young men and women that serve our country in the armed
forces are the noblest of all citizens in our free society. NAS Whidbey has been a long
established installation by which we train our young pilots by which we teach our young
pilots the skills that they need to protect each and everyone of us and our way of life. We
should all stand behind and support them and the bay should be used accordingly.
(b)(6)
1733

I want give thanks for the EA18G Growlers that we are able to share this area with. I
have absolutely no problem with them or their noise and I am grateful for their
contribution to keeping us all safe. The Naval Air Station has been in place since at least
WW2. Anyone who lives,here came after the air station, knew it was already here, and
should have no room to complain.
(b)(6)
1734

I love the sound of FREEDOM
(b)(6)
1735
This EIS must start from when there were no Growlers. That is the base.
(b)(6)
1736

The EA-18 poss no issues. Does anyone opposed ride a motorcycle, run a lawn. Do they
wear hearing protection. A non-issue.
(b)(6)
1737

I fully support NAS Whidbey and all of its activities. The noise from the Growler aircraft
doesnt bother me, nor any of the animals grazing around my property. The cows and
sheep keep right on eating when the jets fly near. The noise is neither constant nor of
long duration and can certainly be accepted as a necessary part of maintaining our
United States Navy readiness and capability. The small, vocal minority who are
complaining about the noise are not supported by the majority of the friends and
neighbors I know. There is no environmental impact on my life nor the habitat around me.
Our Navy needs to make its decisions based on national security and readiness, not on
complaints from a small number of people.
(b)(6)
1738
Freeland, WA 98249
I support the Navy's expansion plans for NAS Whidbey Island, and I support the Navy's
use of the training landing site at Coupeville. Since I am an ex Naval Air Reservist from
Sand Point NAS in Seattle I understand the Navy's need for these facilities. Go Navy!!
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
1739
Nordland, WA 98358
I am in full support of the electronic warfare training. This invaluable training will protect
our troops on the ground and also protect the planes that partake in any incursion on
enemy territory. The Growlers and Prowlers have one of the most dangerous jobs and
they should be supported regardless. I for one, love the sound of freedom. Thank you
and God bless our military.
(b)(6)
1740
Lopez, WA 98261
Keep those planes flying. We are grateful for navy protection.
(b)(6)
1741
Sequim, WA 98382
Double the rattled windows? Triple the rattled nerves? I hope not. Even a single dose of
rattled windows and rattled nerves is too much. The thunder rolls out of the northeast all
(b)(6)
the way to my home at
in Sequim. My windows pick up vibrational speed
with the increase in decibels. It is like a pain. Please no more Growlers and please
discontinue the Growlers now in use. Please keep my address pinpointed on the Navy's
radius map of noise disturbances.
(b)(6)
1742
Lopez, WA 98261
I fully support the operations of U.S. Navy EF-18 growler aircraft out of the Whidbey
Island NAS. The noise level is reasonable and not constant. We need the Navy's
continued protection.
(b)(6)
1743
Sequim, WA 98382
I support the air-ops at NAS Whidbey 100%. Yes, we hear the Growlers here over the
Olympic Peninsula and it's a reminder of the sound of FREEDOM!! I recall as a very
small child growing up on San Juan Island the sound of the air-raid siren and how
unsettling that was. Thanks to our Armed-Forces this country has remained the land of
the free. However, we should not be complacent...remember 9/11! Let the EA-18G
Growlers be heard!!!
(b)(6)
1744
ANACORTES, WA 98221
NOISE IS A SMALL SACRIFICE FOR THE SAFETY THE TRAINING BRINGS. WE
NEED TO HAVE A WELL TRAINED MILITARY.
(b)(6)
1745
coupeville, WA 98239-9517
Keep NASWI OLF open. The pilots need OLF to keep sharp and safe. The anti military
group on the island protests so many other things that they are known as 'CAVE people'
locally...Citzens Against Virtually Everything. If a vote were taken the pro OLF/Navy
would out number the anti navy group thousands to one. We need and appreciate our
navy. Please do not let a small group of vocal CAVE people distract from the navy
mission. Thanks for your service!!!
(b)(6)
1746
I am responding to the announcement of a request for an increase in the number of F18s
at Whidbey Island NAS. The last time you used the OLF (a week or so ago) I was
working on my property outside and the noise was simply intolerable. You flew more
planes in the pattern so the roar was almost continuous. Despite my ear protection I
could hardly function. I cannot contemplate how we are going to live if you fly more here.
In fact it just does not seem safe to fly at all in Coupeville. I am a proponent of the military
and NAS Whidbey but the OLF is not safe and is unhealthy for us who live in the flight
pattern. There must be an alternative.
(b)(6)
1747

I fully support our Troops and the Whidbey Island EA=18 Growler Airfield Operations.
Thanks for doing your job of protecting we Americans.
(b)(6)
1748
Sequim, WA 98382
This reminds me of Roosevelt Roads. The Puerto Ricans demanded that Navy stop using
the island for gunnery practice. So the Navy stated that since we have no use for a Navy
base in Puerto Rico if we cannot use the gunnery range , we will close the base. For
some reason the demands stopped.
(b)(6)
1749

I fully support the training operations at NAS Whidbey. The Growler noise does not
bother me as it is a small price to pay to train our flight crews to defend our nations
interests. Please continue with your planned training at NAS WHIDBEY.
(b)(6)
1750
,
I support our military, and am reminded how lucky I am when hear a little rumbling in the
sky. The men and women who serve this country allow me to stay safe in my home while
they risk their lives and leave their loved ones to make our lives better. The rumble I
hear...it's a reminder that I am one of the lucky ones. Thank you!
(b)(6)
1751

Dear Sir; I am writing in SUPPORT of the EA-18G Growlers at NAS Whidbey Island, WA.
I have been a resident of Lopez Island for 15 years at the south end of the island.
Frankly, I am disappointed in the publics response to the Growlers. I for one think the
sound is music to the ears. I know that the training is essential for the protection of the
country. The noise is a small price to pay for this security. I would encourage the
additional aircraft to be based at Whidbey.
(b)(6)
1752

I am a neighbor to NAS Whidbey. I've not visited there but I whole heartedly support
current and future sounds from the Base. Six year Radioman, served active 1962-'66,
NavComSta Wahiawa then USS Morton DD948, "Saltiest ship in the Fleet" then followed
by 2 years reserve in Oregon. Proud to have served and proud to have the Navy so close
to my home. I still remember the Prowlers and salute them when I pass the front gate.
NAS Whidbey also has gone out of their way to support Critical Medevac calls to San
Juan County, and not just a few times, when no others cold fly. Thanks for the
opportunity!
(b)(6)
1753
Freeland, WA 98249
I support the expanded deployment of EA-18G Growler squadrons at NAS Whidbey
Island, and the continued use of OLF Coupeville for training. The base is an important
part of the Whidbey Island community and I am proud to have our service men and
women stationed and training in this area. The noise of the new jets is comparable to any
noise generated in the past. The only thing there is more of is people living in the area,
and if they do not appreciate the sound of our military safety net training, then they
probably should not live on this island. Our troops need safe and secure places to train
and the base was here long before many who are complaining now. Why relegate our
troops to "nowhere land" to live and train.....we will certainly want them close by if
anything negative were to happen here at home.
(b)(6)
1754

We support the growler increase.
(b)(6)
1755

It's the sound of freedom!
(b)(6)
1756
LaConner, WA 98257
To all the complainers about airplane noise: Did you not know the Naval Air Station was
there? What did you think went on there? Did you think it was just a big USO club? These
whiners make me sick. By the way my father was 3rd in command at Keyport in the
1940s & my brother died in a Japanese prison camp in Burma in WWII. Hopefully the
training our boys receive at NAS Whidbey will prevent that from ever happening again.
(b)(6)
1757
LaConner, WA 98257
Also I own 2 lots in LaConner & your airplanes can fly over my house & make all the
noise they want any time, it doesn't bother me at all. Keep up the good work!!
1758
,
If our airplanes flew 24/7 and we used OLF field every day/night we might have a
problem. But the few days and nights they do fly I find no problem with their noise.
(b)(6)
1759
We cannot begin to discuss additional aircraft before completion of the current EIS.
(b)(6)
1760
FRIDAY HARBOR, WA 98250

KEEP EM FLYING BOYS!
(b)(6)
1761

I support the continued Growler training flights through out the San Juan and Island
counties to better protect the Growler crews via the best possible training.
(b)(6)
1762

NOTHING BETTER THAN FRIENCDLY NOISE TRAINING OUR PROTECTIVE FLIGHT
CREWS!!!!!!!
(b)(6)
1763

I live on the north central west side of Lopez. Occasionally we hear loud jet noise
especially on cloudy & overcast times. It is not objectionable or intolerable. I will accept a
little noise so our pilots are able to train under those conditions. Thank them for being
there.
(b)(6)
1764
To whom it may concern, First of all, do you not think it is beyond reason that the navy is
conducting an environmental impact statement on its own proposal? What qualifies the
navy to police itself with regard to the environment, particularly in the midst of America's
first and only National HIstoriical Reserve? Why is it that the navy never seems to
complete an EIS before they move on to yet another proposal.... thereby moving the
finish line while continuing to move forward with the very thing they are supposed to be
investigating. If private industry tried to get away with this kind of shell game, even our
inept government agencies would put a stop to it. So... please find some place where the
hugely detrimental health effects of 120+ decibel noise can somehow me mitigated.
Somewhere where no one will be affected when one or more of these planes crash due
to pilot error, maintenance mistakes or just plain bad karma. There are places in this
country where that is possible, and if that is not so, then these aircraft should not be
allowed to fly in the configuration they are presently in. There is no good reason to have
these aircraft, any of them, flying 200 feet over populated areas, including homes,
schools, hospitals, multi-million dollar transit facilities with above ground fuel tanks, or
historic areas. Please stop it, now and keep from doing it in the future. Close the OLF,
move the Growlers to a place where they will not be a health hazard. Leave Whidbey
Island and the Northwest corner of Washington a peaceful and quiet place, respectful of
its many Nationally recognized natural and historic attributes. respectfully, david day
coupeville
(b)(6)
1765
OAK HARBOR, WA 982778974

If the Navy thinks they need the the OLF to train their pilots, I am all for it.
(b)(6)
1766
oak harbor, WA 98277

I welcome the addition of the 36 additional Growlers. I support keeping the OLF open for
vital training.it is important for the safety of our service men and women.
(b)(6)
1767

We are so fortunate to have our air force being trained for a real emergency. That is the
sound of FREEDOM! I am so glad the sound if one of OURS!
(b)(6)
1768
Clinton, WA 98236
I would like you to address how flying low over trees and farmlands directly relates to
military strategy worldwide. Are you practicing to attack China or Europe, which have
similar terrain, when it seems the primary threat is the Middle East (desert). Also, how
would increased flights affect the Boeing plant, which routinely tests flights over South
Whidbey Island? How would increased activity benefit South Whidbey Island financially?
Some in North Whidbey defend it because of economic benefits; please explain the
financial benefits to South Whidbey. I'd like to understand more about the big picture
related to military training on a small rural island and how that will save America. Thank
you. (wife of disabled Vietnam combat vet)
(b)(6)
1769
Clinton, WA 98236
I would like you to address how flying low over trees and farmlands directly relates to
military strategy worldwide. Are you practicing to attack China or Europe, which have
similar terrain, when it seems the primary threat is the Middle East (desert). Also, how
would increased flights affect the Boeing plant, which routinely tests flights over South
Whidbey Island? How would increased activity benefit South Whidbey Island financially?
Some in North Whidbey defend it because of economic benefits; please explain the
financial benefits to South Whidbey. I'd like to understand more about the big picture
related to military training on a small rural island and how that will save America. Thank
you. (wife of disabled Vietnam combat vet)
(b)(6)
1770

The occasional noise from Whidby has not been a problem for us on Lopez. I support the
military to do what is necessary to limit the noise and spread it out to different areas so
no area suffers the full effect. Thank you for continuing to serve our country
1771
,
I would like to show my support to our military and say that I hope the 'growlers' will
continue using Whidbey Island as their home base. I know it is really loud, as I almost hit
the street on my face when one flew over, but I prefer that noise to the noise of the
complainers and those who just want their peace and quiet. I think Americans are pretty
spoiled, and out of touch with what the rest of the world is experiencing, and wanted to let
my voice be heard in support of Growler Noise! My comment is confidential because of
the fallout from my neighbors and their loud opinions and defamation of character when
someone opposes them. I view this statement as I view my vote. It is private and it is
mine!
(b)(6)
1772

I first noted aircraft noise in 1997 while camping at Ft Flagler. It was something I was well
aware of when we moved to Whidbey. It is a feature that comes with the location--just like
limited rainfall, the Mukilteo ferry and Deception Pass bridge. The current complaining
about the noise is an indication of egotism and naivet.
(b)(6)
1773

As a resident of San Juan Island I support the EA-18G operations at NAS Whidbey. The
real issue here most likely isn't noise but it's being used as a weak avenue to protest our
military. What ever happened to appreciating "the sounds of freedom?"
(b)(6)
1774

, WA 98261
I fully support the EA-18G Growler flights out of NAS Whidbey. The Whidbey base is
essential to the protection of the N.W. United States.
(b)(6)
1775
Camano Island, WA 98282

We live directly across from Whidbey Island on the northwest corner of Camano Island.
As a result, we are frequently in the flight path of jets taking off or landing at Whidbey
NAS. While there is certainly a noise issue at times, we get every bit as much enjoyment
watching the planes and have so much respect for those thay fly them and the Navy in
general. We are very supportive of what the Navy wants to do and are distressed by the
complainers (many of whom moved into these impacted areas in full knowledge of NAS
Whidbey and its flight operations).
(b)(6)
1776
North Bend, WA 98045

If we limit our military to train than we limit their ability to defend us. Our enemies laugh at
those among us who restrict our very own military for the sake of relatively minor
concerns. The environment is not a minor concern. But it is not being greatly impacted by
the Growlers. The Growler Squadron will provide a very positive impact in defending our
country. It will outweigh any perceived negative environmental impact.
1777
Lopez Island, WA
Please employ noise abatement procedures, to the extent that you can do so without
compromising training objectives. Thank you for your service.
1778
,
We are Lopez Island residents who appreciate the service of our military aviators. If it is
possible to use noise abatement procedures (as many commercial airports do) to reduce
operational noise over inhabited areas, please do so. Thank you.
(b)(6)
1779
Langley, WA 98260
We support any and all Naval aircraft operations on Whidbey Island. You are a vital arm
of Defense for us locally and the Pacific Northwest. Keeping OLF open is essential for
training pilots and other personnel.
(b)(6)
1780

I'm for Alt. 4. We need to bring more planes and more personnel to Whidbey Island. Like
it or not, naval operations support this community. Extra noise means extra money to
local communities.
(b)(6)
1781
La Conner, WA 98257
I have lived in La Conner since 1974. I have always loved the sound of the jets flying over
and jamming our TV (back in the day, before cable). I still love the sound of the jets and
once in a while they can be loud and you can't talk on the phone, but that is the sound of
freedom. The jet noise never woke my children up at night. In fact when the Prowlers
used to practice their touch/go's starting at 2200, it helped me fall asleep, I loved it!! I
don't believe there is any negative impact from the jets flying and when I moved here, I
realized it was next to a Navy base with planes. Go Navy!!
(b)(6)
1782
Langley, WA 98260
I completely support the Navy's interests. Completely. Bring on the flights because most
of us want the training to remain where it is. Those not wishing to deal with the perceived
'threat' can move.
(b)(6)
1783

I was in Anacortes on Friday, October 10th. Numerous planes, returning to Whidbey
NAS, flew low, right over downtown. The noise was piercingly loud, unbelievable. It had
to be above any acceptable decibel level. It was impossible to carry on a conversation on
the street. It was so loud, it was actually painful. There is no way an entire community
should be forced to accept this. I couldn't believe it and kept saying, "Oh my god. Oh my
god." This MUST stop!
(b)(6)
1784

Built our home in 2002. We are on the Ault Field approach for landing and takeoff
(Dugualla Bay) The planes do Not stay out over the water as they should. Often they are
over our house. We have seen the number of planes increase over the years and now we
have the Growlers. And we might get more of them? Please spare us your
rationalizations for needing to add to our noise -- just put us down as NOT in favor of your
plans. NO!
(b)(6)
1785
GROWLERVILLE, WA 18187
Want you guys to know I've asked NAS Whidbey Island to give you guys some "Growler
Love". F--k COER. --------------- I miss my OLF action. You are requested to low-fly Island
Transit HQ next Friday. I am depressed I will have to suffer through an SAO Exit
Conference and not de-stress afterward to EA-18Gs training to defend MY rights to hold
accountable my government. Some of us Americans actually appreciate our freedom.
COER does not. In fact, heres what I want you to do and read carefully: I want you to
find the best low-flying Growler pilots you can probably Steamer, Tabb, Snooki &
D-Day. Get their wives in the back they earned it, especially Tracie & Brittany of The
Legion of Growl. Put three fuel tanks on them Growlers one centerline, two on the
wings so you got all the gas you can haul for AB. Then send em to low-fly sections of
State Hwy 20 on Whidbey doing road recon like during WWII and Vietnam. Just go down
low, 800 feet AGL, swerve over the road like youre looking for trucks and light the cans
starting at 1500 local. Then pull up, exhale, take a sip of water and pick another stretch of
road to road recon. If Nort or the civilian contractor ladies gets any st from COER
pricks, then have a Growler pair break off of their Sonic Suppression and buzz Coupeville
High at 4812'22.15"N, 12241'3.24"W. COER will go bye-bye. This is while four
Growlers from VAQ-129 bounce on Tuesday the 28th. Theyll be your cab rank ready to
provide additional sonic suppression fires from the afterburners. You do that, COER will
stay home or at the least shiver. So sick of them they demand civility but then pick a
fight when we on the Right give civility. Oh and while youre beating COER bullies to a
solid pulp; do us all a solid and find some Growlers & Growler aircrew wanting a Study
Break. Tell em to make sure they have a Study Break with THIS Waypoint in their
computers: 48 8'18.01"N, 12235'47.55"W. Harry Toulgoat the guy who bullied me last
December is there. I want you to tell these Viking kids to just line up on the Toulgoat
waypoint, hit the afterburner and when the jets are right over this bully FORMATION
BREAK! Thatll make that bully think twice about pissing on the Navy League. One pass
should do it, then the study break can cease. Oh and Id like a ride in the back pretty
please, I need to keep up foreign relations with the Nation of Douchebaggery.
Understand if no, but have to inquire. Also on the 29th Wednesday you guys should plan
on a formation flight over Oak Harbor over these coordinates: 4817'59.03"N,
12239'10.02"W. Just buzz it 3 or 4 times at 1600. Ill race outside and get a few snaps
for my Flickr: http://Flickr.com/Avgeekjoe Just do your best, okay? Really want COER to
feel some pain. Finally, damn sure feels great hearing the Growl of Freedom. Love your
(b)(6)
SAR chopper too. Yours;
(b)(6)
1786

Let'em fly and let them touch'n'go at OLF Coupeville. The few minutes of noise should be
a point of cheering not jeering for the pilots that are willing to put there life on the line.
Training is important for most jobs but critical for pilots, so lets support there mission. Are
F-18 noise? you bet, but then it must be because the great job they perform. I would like
to remind opponents that it will too late to support our military when ISIS walks across
Deception Pass Bridge.
(b)(6)
1787

I live in Friday Harbor, and have had no problems with Military Aircraft noise. I live in the
flight path for the Friday Harbor Airport, and am frequently bothered by private aircraft
noise.
(b)(6)
1788

Instead of silly, self-centered whining about jet noise from Whidbey NAS, all should be
very grateful for the sacrifices your crews make over and over to protect their unworthy
selves. Many of us love the sound and wish we were up there too. My very best regards
and thanks for what you do.
(b)(6)
1789

The peculiar geographic situation of the San Juan Islands is deceptive. We are right in
the center of one of the busiest harbors and one of the most rapidly growing economies
in North America. Yet once one is across Rosario Strait, through Thatcher pass and
among the islands there is the impression of being far away in a remote and secluded
area. So it is not unusual that the world-view of our mostly retired population narrows to
exclude the busy world and focus primarily on our island sanctuary. Consequently the
reaction to any intrusion is usually exaggerated. The reaction to the possibility of coal
ships in Rosario Strait and oil tankers in Haro Strait are examples. In the case of the
Growler it is based not only on objection to the noise. It is also a very unwelcome
reminder that there are problems in the outside world which many of our residents dont
want to hear about. I have lived here on Lopez Island for just under fifty years. I live at the
southwest corner of the island just ten miles from NAS Whidbey which is within the area
which is claimed to have the most aircraft noise. The only such noise I have heard which
could be called annoying was night carrier practice at OLF Coupeville. I do hear the
Growlers from time to time, especially when there is a low ceiling. But I have never found
their noise to be a nuisance. And, having served in the U.S. Marine Corps for twenty
years I have a modest understanding of the Growlers function and their exceptional
value, a value that far exceeds any annoyance it might otherwise cause.
(b)(6)
1790

Why are you not planning a scoping meeting anywhere in San Juan County? We, too,
are being directly affected by the Growlers. It is sadly indicative of your lack of
understanding of this problem that you have not included us. I beg of you: please add a
scoping meeting on Lopez or San Juan Island!
(b)(6)
1791

The Growlers' impact on the newly-created San Juan Islands National Monument must
be taken into account. This precious and unique area is being directly affected. I am
alarmed at your lack of acknowledgment of this ALREADY, since you planned not a
single scoping meeting anywhere in San Juan County. This EIS MUST include the
significant impact on all resident & visitors--and even more so on the non-human
inhabitants--of the San Juan Island National Monument.
(b)(6)
1792
Port Townsend , WA 98368

I live in Port Townsend and am very opposed to current air traffic, let alone more!
(b)(6)
1793

We have lived here on Whidbey about half way between Oak Harbor and Coupeville, for
over 50 years. We came with the Navy in 1962 and basically never left although I only
served for five years. The noise has never been a problem for us and the a/c fly just
south of our house. We encourage the Navy to continue their presence here on Whidbey.
Keep it up!
(b)(6)
1794

I am in favor of the Growler coming to Whidbey. One reason is, the Navy is the financial
base for Oak Harbor and vicinity and a second is, we must encourage our military....it IS
THE SOUND OF FREEDOM! God bless America
(b)(6)
1795
The complaints about the Navy's use of OLF have no merit. The complaints are from a
vocal minority who simply hate the Navy and all it stands for. I support the Navy's use of
OLF for whatever purposes it requires. Our naval aviators need to train, and require the
facilities to engage in that training. The Navy should be able to do what it needs to do,
and the leftist complainers should be ignored.
(b)(6)
1796

I'm against a greater military presence. I'm against the noise. I'm against my tax dollars
being spent on any of this. I want the Growler program in WA state ended.
(b)(6)
1797

This issue should not be attracting the media attention that it has. I have lived in Oak
Harbor since 1970, except for a four year period from 1078 to 1982. The US Navy jets
that fly here are a source of pride for me and the vast majority of the community supports
their presence. I support NAS Whidbey and the Outlying Field (OLF) located near
Coupeville, WA. The minority that has been so vocal on this issue does not understand
the importance of the US Navy's presence to our local economy and to our National
Defense. Save OLF and save the US Navy at NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
1799

if crews do not train, they can't fight
(b)(6)
1800

We've owned our property since the late 60's and lived here since February 1978. We
raised our son and all kinds of birds and critters here. Living under the landing pattern
hasn't hurt any of us. The EA-18G is no more loud or disruptive than any other previous
plane and it doesn't worry us.
(b)(6)
1801
Delivery Address1 field is required

freeland, WA 98249
I am in total support of OLF and all that it represents.
(b)(6)
1802
Freeland, WA 98249
I support the NAS Whidbey base and the growler flights. Our young people who serve,
especially those in the air, on the ground and on the landing carriers in Puget Sound are
rarely heard from - but they are important members of our community who deserve our
full support.
(b)(6)
1803
Freeland, WA 98249
The phrase, "the sound of freedom", says it all for me and my children. In fact, we enjoy
watching the A/P exercises at OLF Coupeville when possible. We fully support all military
defense facilities in WA & understand what it brings to the communities. Absolutely
necessary for Whidbey & WA.
1804
EIS Rescoping Letter, Page 2 of 9
In developing the proposed range of alternatives, the

DoN utilized long established operational considerations
which are more fully described in the 2005 and 2012 EAs for
the replacement of the EA6B Prowler aircraft with the
newer EA18G Growler aircraft at NAS Whidbey Island. These
considerations include the fact that all of the Navys
electronic attack mission and training facilities are
located at NAS Whidbey Island, including the substantial
infrastructure and training ranges that have developed in
more than 40 years of operation, the location of a suitable
airfield that provides for the most realistic training
environment,
the
distance
aircraft
would have to travel to accomplish
training,
and
the
expense
of
duplicating
existing
capabilities
elsewhere. As a result, the DoN is not
considering alternative locations for
FCLP training, or squadron relocation.
6 Jan. 14 1st FCLP at OLF 1503 Local
(Emphasis mine)
To me, my mission was accomplished when OLF was rescued from a threat
by COER then-President Ken Pickard to file an injunction that would put EA-18Gs
in substantial risk of crashing into aircraft carriers. All for relatively few COER
members can have their peace & quiet at the very real endangerment of human life.
However, let us not forget in the wake of this decision to slam the door shut
on alternatives to OLF Coupeville the following consequences will occur:
Transit service to OLF Coupeville (and Ault Field) is in serious jeopardy
due to Island Transit fiscal mismanagement limiting public access to
watch Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) American taxpayers pay for.
Central Whidbey as a community is divided. Period.
Further litigation is inbound regarding FCLP at OLF Coupeville mostly
in a quest now to seek money to get out from under the jets.
OLF Coupeville will remain what one VAQ aviator confidant called a
high visibility facility for years, meaning that any change there will
1804
Noise Disclosure on Whidbey Island

That said, I must protest vehemently the
land use fiasco around OLF Coupeville. Frankly
as much as I vehemently oppose the currently
proposed remedies of Judy Gremmels & Isobel
Kameros website to the point I wont advertise the
link; I believe there was inappropriate conduct
around land use transactions in Central Whidbey
that requires judicial review. I agree with the US Navy however that the response
to this is not shipping another group of Americans most likely a larger number
the costs of an environmental impact statement, aviation easements, eminent
domain and altering their soundscape with combat aircraft noise. The Navy should
however have the appropriate official stress publicly to Island County
Commissioners the importance of not approving additional permits under the OLF
flight patterns. Furthermore, the Navy needs to direct a senior NAS Whidbey
official or the VAQ Commodore to write an op-ed in defense of OLF Coupeville.
As such, I also support the EIS Study scoping the following:
Eminent domain
Aviation easements disclosing those that currently exist, and those
that may need to be bought
A program to step up noise disclosure
A website where folks wanting to get out from under the jets can sell
their homes to Navy families.
There. Something that doesnt have to be a win-loss equation.
Grant to Island Transit for Services to NAS Whidbey

Island Facilities at Ault Field & OLF Coupeville
Beginning by noting I began drafting this section at 1900 Hours on the dot at
12 October 2014, before the Washington State Auditors Office (SAO) Exit
Conference while Bar Rescue plays in my headphones. Gee, I wonder why I
mention all of this? Could it be Island Transit needs Jon Taffer or his body double
1804
Oak Harbor Mayor Scott Studley Dudley?

Uh yeah. Could it be Im well aware Island
Transit is in dire straits and therefore my ride
to OLF Coupeville and Ault Field? YES!
Could it be Im well aware Island Transit
should be serving NAS Whidbey Island a lot
better than just a few aviation geeks looking
to strike it Growling Loud at OLF Coupeville? You betcha!
So I propose a win-win solution here:
1. Have the Navy give Island Transit a grant that funds service from
downtown Oak Harbor to Ault Field. Make sure theres aviation
photography stops close to an active runway for those of us civilians
who want some afterburner. Please.
2. Require Island Transit provide services to link up with Skagit Transit
so this isnt just for Whidbey Island to get the grant.
3. Set goals that the per-rider cost cannot exceed X amount of dollars and
ridership goals for service to Navy personnel & aviation geeks alike.
4. Require monthly reporting with independent verification of expenses
and ridership and if a quarter goes by without meeting quarterly cost
containment & ridership goals the grant simply is withdrawn.
There you go. Should be worth a scope, eh?
Assorted Economic Data to Seek for the Draft EIS

Below is a list of economic data points I believe are necessary for the Draft
EIS. Just want to help present the economic impact of NAS Whidbey Island in a
balanced way:
1. Direct & indirect economic output in jobs and wages of NAS Whidbey
Island for the following jurisdictions:
a. Oak Harbor
b. Coupeville
c. Island County
d. Washington State
1804
Then theres the matter of the aviation geek (avgeek) community coming to
Coupeville to watch and hear FCLPs. I sure believe if Coupeville is supportive of
the Navy presence and the Navy just needs to compensate some COER folks;
Coupeville deserves more of our business with another 35 Growlers for FCLPs.
An Aviation Photographers Suggestions on OLF

Its probably no surprise to any Navy
employee or contractor working on OLF
Coupeville issues I have a few suggestions of
my
own
regarding
OLF
Coupeville.
Considering again that OLF Coupeville is a
fundamental part of Ebeys Landing,
Here goes my personal wish list:
1. Since it appears the US Navy will
have to mitigate OLF Coupeville at
some point, please consider building parking spaces at the southeast
corner of OLF Coupeville and a viewing platform. Aviation photographers
really want in our pictures the smoking tires and other ground elements
that make OLF Coupeville, OLF Coupeville. For those of us making the
trip from British Columbia, Skagit County, Oregon, and places even
faraway it's almost if not necessary to make the trip worthwhile.
2. Please have a historic final EA-6B Prowler Field Carrier Landing Practice
at OLF Coupeville with at least a weeks advance warning so we can come
watch a final Field Carrier Landing Practice of the EA-6B Prowler before
retirement from US Navy service. Just slide into your awesome schedule!
3. Can you please have an aviation
photographer's day and take folks out to the
LSO Shack at least once a year? Please?!?
El Centro has such a program why not
OLF Coupeville? Then theres the time
some OLFer who put 2.5 years into the OLF
fight got to go the pinnacle of his life, even
better than riding in Nine o Nine, a B-17!
1804
4. Please change the name of OLF Coupeville to OLF Kunzler and change
KNRA to KNZR? Considering how Coupeville wont treasure Americas
OLF and the initials NRA represent a controversial political group; should
be reason enough for a name change.
5. Please consider move the concrete blocks in
closer to OLF. In the southwest corner which
the top OLFer hotspot as per my photo, Id
move them in to the top of the ledge
overlooking OLF cutting the distance from
about 525 feet to 370 feet. If fellow Americans
and I consciously choose to risk our hearing,
just have the NAS Whidbey JAG legally clear
a big sign okay? After all, you need more
OLFers or patriots like these who regularly
attend and defend OLF Coupeville as much as
EA-18Gs need fuel, period. Also at Paine Field KPAE there is a
viewing spot called The Windsock that is only around 370 feet from
runway centerline and minimal issues arising at KPAE from its use.
6. Please give OLF Coupeville a circumference trail. A circumference trail
would make OLF Coupeville an even greater aviation photography
destination and when OLF is not in use double as a cross country trail.
7. Please go to the Flickr group https://www.flickr.com/groups/nolfcoupeville/
full of OLFers pictures and support for OLF.
Concluding Thoughts
Ultimately, I told many friends Id consider
2,500 words my runway. So Ill conclude acutely: We
OLFers got OLF open for good; now with Alternative
Three and some hard work on the mitigation front as
Ive written here OLF Coupeville will be even louder,
better and brighter. Its important to make sure the
US Navy proves and remains the great neighbor the
US Navy truly is. We OLFers instead want COER
bought off and deserve more OLF action. Oh and ^GO VAQ-139 COUGARS!^
1805
1805
1805
1805
1805
1805
(b)(6)
1806
Please look at your own data, along with easily obtained independent scientific studies on
jet noise's effects on health--hearing, heart attacks, anxiety attacks, stress, anger, etc. It
is time to move the Growlers to a safer, less populated area.
(b)(6)
1807

We fully support and encourage ongoing Naval Operations at NAS Whidbey Island as
well as increased EA18-G Growler training at OLF Coupeville. "LET FREEDOM RING"
GO NAVY!!! We are honored to be your neighbors and grateful for your service and
protection. Thank you!
(b)(6)
1808
Berlin, MD 21811
We have a similar situation here on the east coast in that on nearby Wallops Island
carrier landing exercises have been carried-out and will be continued in the future. Any
knowledgable citizen supports an effort similar to this as an indication of our commitment
to national defense vis-a-vie military readiness.Any supposition that this kind of activity is
in any way damaging to the populace is rediculous and should be dismissed out-of-hand.
(b)(6)
1809
I am a resident of Whidbey Island who is lucky enough not to live in a noise zone but I
have often been in an area where the growlers have flown overhead. If I am outside at
the time, the noise is actually painful even if I have my ears covered. I can't imagine how
awful that must be for the citizens who live in that area and whose sleep is disturbed by
that extremely loud noise. It reminds me of torture regimens I have read about. I am also
concerned about the children who are outside playing or in class studying and are
subjected to this level of noise. I know you get many supportive responses but these are
from those who benefit financially from the growlers and are willing to sacrifice their
hearing and health to make a living. Innocent people should not suffer. Whidbey Island is
too populated to have an even larger amount of these poorly designed planes.
(b)(6)
1810
, WA
AS A TAXPAYER WHO IS FUNDING THESE JET FIGHTERS, I WANT YOU TO STOP
THE NOISY AND INTRUSIVE FLIGHTS OVER ANACORTES. THERE IS PLENTY OF
SPACE OVER OPEN WATER TO CONDUCT THEM.
(b)(6)
1811
For 26 years, we've lived within 6 miles of the Whidbey outlying field. We understood and
accepted the navy's use of the OLF all that time. Noisy as it could be with A6's and
EA6B's, however, it was nothing compared to the nerve-wracking din created by the
EA-18G. When the Growler flies, conversation, sleep, music or TV, EVERYTHING stops.
Though our address lies outside designated flight patterns and I only complain when the
pilots stray, the noise is much louder than anything I've ever been subjected to.
(b)(6)
1812

We live in the sound envelope of the Coupeville OLF. Sometimes it provides background
noise and at other times it sounds like the planes are landing in the back yard. I can
appreciate the frustration of those who live closer to the noise, but we were informed
when we purchased our property of the OLF and its noise. We live with it and at times
actually welcome the noise. It reminds us that others are working hard to maintain our
freedom and the freedom of others around the world and that this work takes place 24x7,
365. My wife and I support maintaining Coupeville OLF and NAS Whidbey on Whidbey
Island.
(b)(6)
1813
Anacortes, WA 98221
Please reconsider the following in your scoping processes: Increased air emissions and
their impacts to humans, wildlife and the environment including Anacortes, Guemes
Island and the Olympic National Park. The impact on all of the above from an increase in
air traffic and the NOISE it brings. The NOISE levels, the duration and repetition of flights
interrupts sleep, normal conversation and activities, it must also impact wildlife at such
high decibel levels. More Growlers would only bring more noise, more pollution, more
impacts.
(b)(6)
1814
My wife and I purchased our property on (b)(6)
in 2000 to build our retirement
home. At the time of purchase we were fully aware of the fact that we were on a military
island and there was a practice field up above where we had bought. It wasn't long after
we retired in 2003 that we began to see the planes utilizing OLF for their practicing and
noticed that you didn't have to look for the planes because you could hear them coming.
The upside of the whole thing is that I could stand out in my yard as the planes flew by
and occasionally wave to the smiling face that was flying it and actually get a wave back
and the comfort from this was knowing that it was a young American pilot who was giving
of himself and his family to be there to be the best he could be for my benefit as well as
everyone else who is lucky enough to live in this country. To all of the nay Sayers who
have moved in here since the Navy and are in complete denial about airplanes and
related noise that they didn't know about I would say you should have done your
homework before you bought here and not now cry foul because the newer Growlers are
noisier than the old Prowlers so for your peace of mind and hearing you feel the Navy
should move on instead of you. I personally have spent most of my working life around
people who felt they were above the line of the common folk and thought their way of
thinking should be the rule and everyone should bend to their desires and to these
people I would say if you want to live in Marthas Vineyard or a place like that you should
pack up your U-Haul head east and turn left when you get to Boston but stop telling the
Navy they need to move off of your island because they were here long before the
majority of you and hopefully they will be here long after we are all long gone. GO NAVY
(b)(6)
and go (b)(6)
keep up the fight(b)(6) Respectfully submitted
(b)(6)
1815

I fully support ongoing Naval Air Operations here at NAS Whidbey Island, specifically the
necessary flight training exercises held at OLF Coupeville. As a seventeen year resident
of Whidbey Island, I find it difficult to comprehend the nonsense concocted by the COER
Group nor can I tolerate anyone who jeopardizes the security of the citizens of the United
States or the safety of those serving our country by trying to hinder and cease flight
operations in our area. This is America and everyone is entitled to his/her opinion but
common sense is not part of the COER agenda. Thanks to the Navy, Whidbey Island has
an economy. It is my understanding, according to a 2005 Washington State Economic
Report (for military communities) that the Navy is responsible for nearly 90% of all
economic activity in Island County. God Bless our Navy!!! It is my hope that an increase
in the number of Naval Squadrons here at NAS Whidbey, as well as increased EA-18G
Growler flight operations at OLF Coupeville will be given the green light to keep our
economy growing and our country safe. Lastly, I would like to apologize for not being
available to attend the EIS Impact meetings in person to show my support as my work
schedule conflicts with the dates they are to be held. Thank you for your service!
(b)(6)
1816

I support the Navy in the basing of the additional EAF18G's at Whidbey NAS and the use
of OLF Coopeville for the carrier landing practice.
(b)(6)
1817

I support the OLF, I studied the area prior to buying my home, I knew there was a Navy
Base, I knew there was jet noise, I live with it, we are used to it, it really isn't that bad. I
live right in the winter flight path on North Whidbey and proudly wave as the planes fly by.
(b)(6)
1818
Langley, WA 98260
I am a former Island County Commissioner (1993-2007) representing District 1 which
includes OLF Coupeville. I fully support NAS Whidbey including locating additional planes
at the base. Both the airfields in Oak Harbor and Coupeville have been operational for 70
years and should be grandfathered. Please do not let a vocal few over shadow the strong
support the vast majority of Island County residents has for NAS Whidbey and it's
mission.
(b)(6)
1819
Langley, WA 98260
I am a former Island County Commissioner (1993-2007) representing District 1 which
includes OLF Coupeville. I fully support NAS Whidbey including locating additional planes
at the base. Both the airfields in Oak Harbor and Coupeville have been operational for 70
years and should be grandfathered. Please do not let a vocal few over shadow the strong
support the vast majority of Island County residents has for NAS Whidbey and it's
mission.
(b)(6)
1820
When I considered buying property here in 1989 I looked carefully at the Navy noise
charts and diagrams before deciding where to buy. The jets still fly over my home on the
way to and from the OLF in Coupeville, but it does not bother us and we consider the
noise the "sound of freedom". The small but very vocal group who are opposed to
anything at the OLF apparently purchased their land and homes after 1942 when the
Navy arrived. They must have made a decision at the time of purchase that the noise,
which already existed, would not be a significant problem for them. Now, some years
after they became residents of the land near the OLF, they have decided the noise is a
problem for them. Clearly they have three choices available: 1. Live with it and get on
with their lives. 2. Move someplace else. 3. Try to force the Navy to leave. The third
option, trying to change the world to suit their previously made bad decision, is the least
likely to succeed and will cause more harm to everyone except the persons who originally
made the bad decision. The Navy and OLF should stay right where they are.
(b)(6)
1821
Oak Harbor, WA 98277-6801

I support the Growler operations here on Whidbey and the Navy mission. Keep the
airplanes operating here. if more planes are needed, NASWI is the correct location since
the base and OLF Cpvl have been operating for over 70yrs.
(b)(6)
1822

I welcome the Navy's desire to base more Growler aircraft at NAS Whidbey Island. Not
only does the mission of the aircraft provide an important deterrent to any would-be Asian
theater aggressor, the sailors who fly and support the aircraft are a welcome addition to
our community. We are truly blessed whenever the Navy assigns more of these
dedicated and selfless people to our community. God Bless our Navy Airmen! And the
noise? That's the sound of freedom.
(b)(6)
1823

I support the expansion of EA-18G Growler Airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island.
With their strategic location on the Pacific Ocean we need these operations to maintain
the security of our Country.
(b)(6)
1824
Freeland, WA 98249
First of all, I'm convinced that the Growlers impact is negative. They are noticeably
louder; I often hear them from my home in Freeland, whereas a rarely heard planes
before their arrival. The failure of the Navy to acknowledge that fact just convinces me
that most of the 'information' you disseminate is simply propaganda. The second negative
item is the frequency and the time of day when touch and go operations happen at OLF.
The are and will continue to be negative impacts on physical and mental health of the
population as well as negative consequences for the tourist trade and property values.
Coupled with the activities now leaking out about the use of the National Forests on the
Olympic Peninsula for further training, the creeping militarization of our country in face of
minimal threat to our country itself is destructive to our moral fiber as a nation. Fear, fear,
fear; protect, protect, protect!
(b)(6)
1825
Langley, WA 98260
My Husband, a 30 year Navy Veteran, passed away 3 years ago. I am sure that I can
speak for him in saying that we would support our Navy Base on Whidbey Island in any
case scenario.I am proud to have the base, the military men and women,and the security
that they provide. I believe the base is in a very critical spot and needs all the support it
can get.
(b)(6)
1826
CAMANO ISLAND, WA 98282

I support the Navy and any growth it may plan. This means jobs to our area and growth.
So what if there is an increase in noise level. Let those complainers find somewhere else
to take their complaints.
(b)(6)
1827
anacortes, WA 98221
The military is essential to our well being as a country and well trained aviators are
essential to the military. I endorse expansion of the wing.
(b)(6)
1828

To Whom It May Concern: It is a beautiful evening, except, again, as has happened so
many times during the last many months, the dreadful deep roar of distant Whidbey
Island jets destroys the environment. Many nights the jets fly long into the night. The jets
often fly for many hours during the day, day after day, and night after night. Noise of this
sort is is a pernicious form of pollution, causing a perpetual stress response, affecting
everyone at the deepest level of being. A great deal of recent scientific research
concerning noise in the environment indicates clearly that the effects of noise on health
are similar to the effects of many other forms of pollution. Effects of noise are profound,
whether they are distant or immediate. The duration, quality, and vibrational level of noise
can be as important as the volume. Noise affects all of us, whether we hear it or not,
whether we experience it as painful or not. Just as some sounds can be instantaneously
calming, other qualities of sound can be instantaneously shattering. The effects of these
experiences don't have to reach the level of awareness to be profound nonetheless. The
effects can be insidious and cumulative. The noise from the jets on Whidbey Island is
dreadful, in the literal sense of the word dread-full. The noise shatters calm, shatters all
other sounds of the environment. Even in our busy modern world, we rely on sounds from
the environment for vital and meaningful information, coming to us all the time from our
surroundings, both near and far. It is part of our genetic heritage to be attuned to sound
and to be responsive to sound. We respond, consciously or not, to sounds such as those
from the jets, with dread and alarm. It is medically well established that this causes a
cascade stress response within us which can contribute negatively to all manner of health
problems. A stress reaction to which we can respond meaningfully is entirely different
from a stress response that is ongoing and outside our ability to affect or escape. This
creates a situation conducive to illness, to aggravating other pre-existing medical
conditions, and interrupts that which is required for health and healing. Studies about
noise in the environment are ongoing and current. Scientific findings support and confirm
individuals' experience of the very harmful effects of noise on health and well being. It is
recognized globally that noise of this sort is one of the terrible impacts of war. It is wrong
to allow noise of this sort to destroy the quality of daily life. Please take an immediate and
forward-looking approach to form proactive policy concerning noise in the environment.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1829
I have noreal problem with the Navy expansion other than I would like them to get up to
minimum flight paterns before they fl;y over us at (b)(6)
Coupeville. We have
been here a lot longer than the Navy, since 1852. I would like the Navy to control their
weeds on OLF Coupeville. My sugestin is to resume leasing the ag. lands to local
farmers. God Bless you guys.(b)(6)
(b)(6)
1830
Clinton, WA 98236
I say, "Go for it" when it comes to increasing the size and operations of our U.S.Navy
installation in Oak Harbor !! Our nation is in a very scary and precarious situation right
now with the world and terror happenings going on. The More Defense we have, the
Better !!
(b)(6)
1831
The Growlers are too loud. When I first moved here in 1998, the planes weren't so loud.
I've been living in the same house since 1999. I barely noticed the planes at first. Now
with the Growlers, the sound is ear-splitting.
(b)(6)
1832
please add me to your mailing list. Thank you, (b)(6)
Past CO of NAS Whidbey Island
(b)(6)
1833
fly those growlers right up Dick Cheenie's ASSHOLE ! and also, FUCK YOU
1834
,
yes, FUCK YOU with a growler
1835
,
you are SO VERY full of shit
(b)(6)
1836

I have always supported our Navy and their mission during my forty (40) years spent here
on Whidbey. My job was to manage a title company that examined all areas of Whidbey
and communicate with many owners during that time. There is no question that the vast
majority of Whidbey residents from Greenbank North supports our military, and especially
our Navy.
(b)(6)
1837

Keep OLF open and the Navy flying! It's time for the anti American whiners (COER) to
stop attempting to kill jobs for their own monetary benefit.
(b)(6)
1838
Camano Island, WA 98282-7638

Change is constant. Defense of our nation is paramount. NAS Whidbey must be allowed
to make those adjustments deemed necessary.
(b)(6)
1839
Mount Vernon, WA 98274

I would support expansion of Growler Airfield Operations at NAS Whidby Island. I think
this is beneficial for the economy of the community and our area, and for national
defense.
(b)(6)
1840
Anacortes, WA
Our military is our main line of defense. If we need to expand NAS then do it. As
someone living under the flight paths I'm OK with the expansion.
(b)(6)
1841
Whereas we appreciate the job the Navy does and their roll in defending our country we
feel the Navy needs to relocate these jets to a less populated, less environmentally
sensitive area. The noise the jets generate and the frequency we are subjected to them is
torturous. Citizens who live in the area cannot communicate, watch, their favorite shows,
enjoy the outdoors, sleep, or even think when they they are flying. I commute to the
mainland daily for my work and when the jets are flying I cannot fall to sleep. Many times
I have left for work in tears for lack of sleep. I know sleep deprivation is a form of torture.
Subsequently, I am fearful for my job.Their presence in the area has driven down our
property values. Houses or property that come up for sale stay on the market for a year
or more and either don't sell or if they do at a greatly reduced price. Please NO More
Growlers (here). Close OLF.
(b)(6)
1842
, WA 98260
Why is the Navy so determined to continue operations at NAS Whidbey OLF, when they
can easily relocate the field to another sparsely populated area anywhere within 50 miles
and avoid the public complaints? Growler touch-and-go operations are at a noise level
which will soon result in litigation from parents whose children has been permanently
impaired. The Sound of Freedom is so much more pleasing in the Mojave, although I
understand the duty station is not so pleasant.
(b)(6)
1843
Port Ludlow, WA 98365

(b)(6)
My wife
and I support adding 36 Growler jets at NAS Whidbey. To us jet engine
noise is not an issue when living in this great country. It is a price of freedom to be
protected by the best military service in the world. Our young people need the training
and deserve the best. The additional families moving into the surrounding community will
only bring economic benefits. I lost my father in WWII, who was shot down over Germany
(B-17 pilot). People these days do not understand and realize the sacrifices that this
generation of Americans made in order for us to enjoy our freedom. We support more
noise and training for a strong America. We have no respect for complainers over the
noise issue and they have the option of moving.
(b)(6)
1844
Oak Harbor , WA 98277

We have lived in Oak Harbor for nearly 40 years. My wife and I wholeheartedly support
the presence of the Naval Air Station, it's personnel,equipment and aircraft. We
appreciate your dedication to your jobs and service to our country. THANK YOU!
(b)(6)
1845

I totally support the Navy in its' operations on Whidbey Island. They are a first line
defense of our national security. The small vocal group trying to close NAS Whidbey are
just that....a small vocal group. Keep NAS Whidbey open.
(b)(6)
1846
Oak Harbor Wa 98277, WA 98277

I strongly support the Navy's use of the Coupeville OLF. The training site offers a unique
training environment to allow aircrews to practice the carrier landing skills in a sparsely
lighted area very similar to being at sea by virtue of its location in a rural farmland area. It
also assists the Navy's ability to alternate practice sites to alleviate noise impact on those
properties immediately adjacent to the main base at Ault field.
(b)(6)
1847
OAK HARBOR, WA 98277

Just wanted to say, thanks for your service! Keep up the great work! =)
(b)(6)
1848

I would like the Navy to know they have the full support of my family and friends up and
down our island. I support the Navy training their pilots to the best of their ability even if it
causes increased noise. The people complaining bought their properties low due to their
proximity to the OLF airstrip and are looking to sell them high. God Bless our sailors.
Keep them trained, keep them safe!
(b)(6)
1849

I am a native of Oak Harbor born in 1942. As a youngster in our community in my early
years my family were asked to house military folks on our homes. There were very few
military housing apparently in the early years of NAS. Growing up in this community
having many military friends both while in school as well as now some 70 years later is
still be the biggest asset this community has as well as for me personally. We grew up
with the planes and loved hearing them everyday! I fully support the growth of our Navy
in this community and pray that they are here for years to come.
1850
,
My comment is the NO Action Alternative... I do not think that Whidbey Naval Base needs
to expand!
(b)(6)
1851

I stand in total support of NAS Whidbey's mission. My family came to Whidbey with the
Navy in the 40's and have appreciated all they do for this community. The vast majority of
us feels the same.
(b)(6)
1852
freelalnd, WA 98249
The Navy has been on the island for a long time. They provide many,many jobs on the
island and contribute to island economy. Navy personnel and their families also
contribute to the island economy. Yes, there is noise but that is the price we must pay for
our freedom. Many of the people complaining bought AFTER the Navy arrived. Many
paid a cheaper price for their property because of the noise and they are now
complaining about the noise. Let's use this logic. If you live near a freeway that had just
been built and 20 years later it is a lot noisier, do you ask them to cut down on the traffic
flowing over the freeway to reduce the noise? No, and its the same for the Navy. If you
didn't like the noise of the Navy planes, why did you chose to live here in the first place.
(b)(6)
.
(b)(6)
1853

Please include my wife and myself among the overwhelming majority of Oak Harbor
residents who welcome the presence of NAS Whidbey here in our community! Those
advocating for the base closure may be very vocal but please know that they are a very
small minority of residents.
(b)(6)
1854

Just want you to know that I appreciate NAS Whidbey, and ALL of the contributions you
make to Island County...from community contributions to economic ones. Thank you!
(b)(6)
1855

I support the Navy presence on Whidbey Island. Both the Ault field and Outlying Field
should be employed with no restrictions if safety, training and military readiness require it.
I live in Oak Harbor. Those who find it too noisy should move to a less noisy area. I chose
my home to not be in the flight path and I don't like that kind of noise overhead either, but
they should not expect the Navy to unilateral remedy their circumstances and their poor
initial choice to live adjacent to an active airfield. GO Navy!
(b)(6)
1856

I support the Navy presence on Whidbey Island. Both the Ault field and Outlying Field
should be employed with no restrictions if safety, training and military readiness require it.
I live in Oak Harbor. Those who find it too noisy should move to a less noisy area. I chose
my home to not be in the flight path and I don't like that kind of noise overhead either, but
they should not expect the Navy to unilateral remedy their circumstances and their poor
initial choice to live adjacent to an active airfield. GO Navy!
(b)(6)
1857

I live just off of NAS Ault Field, under the flight path. There are planes taking off and
landing over my head almost daily, not just the Growlers headed to OLF. This has been
my family home since 1970. My dad was career Navy, as was my husband, so I've spent
my entire life on and around air bases, yet my last hearing check showed that I have
suffered no damage to my hearing AT ALL. Long ago I learned to pause a conversation
with "hold that thought for a few seconds, I have a jet in my ear". Do I love the smell of jet
fuel in the morning? Maybe not so much. So, I wash what comes in from my garden
before I eat it.My health is exceptionally good for all that I was raised around noisy,
dirty,'cancer causing' jets. I DO love hearing the national anthem wafting through the air
every morning at 0800, reminding me why the base is here. The inconvenience of having
to use T.V. Ears to hear an evening program is balanced by the knowledge that our air
crews have access to the best training possible here on Whidbey. I don't know what
being in the flight path will affect the sale of my property should I decide to sell, but, then,
this place was purchased to be a home, not an investment property. Bottom line; the
inconvenience posed by noise and the occasional mist is far outweighed by the benefits
offered to our community in terms of economic stability and the people who come to be a
part of our community for a short or long time.
(b)(6)
1858

We are glad you are on the Island. I served in the Surface Navy (DDG officer) during the
60's, and have the utmost respect for Navy/Marine pilots and flight crews. They need all
of our support.
(b)(6)
1859

My husband and I wish to add our names to the list of those who are adversely affected
by the noise from the new Growler airplanes. We eliminated Whidbey Island as a place to
settle because of the noise from the Navel Base. For quite a while the noise wasnt all
that bad on Camano Island were we decided to live, but when the Navy brought in the
Growlers the noise became truly objectionable. Studies have shown that elevated noise
levels have a deleterious affect of peoples health. We understand that the pilots needs to
train and we want them to be experts both for the sake of their missions and for their
personal safety. However, we hope that some new flying patterns will be developed that
would reduce some of the noise. Perhaps the planes could fly over a larger area so that
they wouldnt have to circle over each neighborhood so many times. Perhaps some hours
and/or days could be quiet days. We would really appreciate any efforts the Navy could
make to reduce the noise problem for their neighbors in many communities.
(b)(6)
1860
I would like to comment in SUPPORT of the flight operations for the EA-18G Growler at
BOTH NAS Whidbey Island Ault Field and at the NAS Outlying Field (OLF). The Navy
aircrews deserve the best training possible for their dangerous work and all flight
operations at BOTH fields needs to continue.
(b)(6)
1861

I offer my unreserved, unqualified and complete support to the United States Navy in
their Planning,implementation and operations, including flight operations, in all aspects of
training for air missions, at The Outlying Field and Whidbey Island Naval Air Station. I
rest my trust in the Navy to make the best decisions for our region and our nation.
(b)(6)
1862
Bothell, WA 98012
What is now our 2nd home and will in future years be our only home lies under a leg of
the airport pattern for Ault Field at NASWI. We frequently experience Growler traffic
directly over our house and often throughout the day and night or several days and
nights. We find no hardships to ourselves nor observe any apparent affect on the pets,
livestock, or other inhabitants of the area as a result of Growler flight activity. We find as
well that the Growler aircraft are noticeably quieter than the Prowler predecessor. Finally,
we signed a disclaimer when we purchased our property that duly notified us of military
air traffic in the area. We consider that notice binding. It said there would be planes and
we demand planes. We fully support the Navy's air operations at NASWI.
(b)(6)
1863
Oak harbor, WA 98277

My husband and I totally support NAs whidbey and all of our military men and women. If
you live in a military town you should support them
(b)(6)
1864
Dear Navy, I strongly support the Navy's valuable provision of defense through EA-18Gs
to be stationed at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station and using the Outlying Field. I have
no concerns about their increased presence on Whidbey, and welcome them and their
service personnel into the community. Regarding OLF: I believe that the recent efforts to
create a community balance by reducing OLF flights to a set number while also
concurrently supporting the Air Station's mission is a sound one. Thank you, and
welcome to the EA-18Gs.
(b)(6)
1865

I have lived on Whidbey Island for 21 years now and was made aware of NAS Whidbey
Island and the areas where there was more noise. We bought in an are that did have
more noise as it was all we could qualify for at the time. Even though there were some
times when it got pretty noisy, we also enjoyed watching them and are sure glad the
Navy is here. We very much appreciate our military here and all they sacrafice in keeping
this great country safe. Thank you!!
(b)(6)
1866
Stanwood, WA 98292
Do whatever you have to do to train our troops and keep our country safe. GO NAVY!!!
(b)(6)
1867
Langley, WA 98260
1.- Natonal defense comes first and is of utmost importance. 2.- Jobs created on
Whidbey because of the the Navy is impressive and critical for our economy. 3.- The
residents of Coupeville, before they purchased their homes, knew the flying exercises
were being performed and that they are necessary. 4.- Any number of
states/communities would jump at the chance and beg the Navy to move to their area. 5.Embrace and appreciate what we have here on Whidbey regarding the Navy's presence.
They have been here since 1942! Long before most residents of Whidbey Island were
here.
(b)(6)
1868

I live in the flight path and knowingly purchased my property. That being said, can we
maybe curtail flights at 10:30 pm or something? Can we have the pilots vary their flight
path a little to "share the wealth" with some of the people who purport to "love airplane
noise"? Thanks for all you do, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1869
Having attended last night's public scoping meeting in Coupeville, read the materials,
spoken to the navy representatives, and lived as an OLF neighbor for 26 years, I feel
qualified to distill the issues to the primary one of noise. For all the discussion of other
effects, it's the noxious impact of high decibel levels that has your neighbors upset. There
were times over the years when the A6's or EA6B's strayed off their patterns and inspired
a phone call to the operations duty officer. No matter how you slice and dice the data, the
EA18 is even louder and more deleterious to my family's wellbeing. The answers to my
questions last night did nothing to alleviate my growing sense that my neighbors are just
going to do what they damn well please; that this scoping, data-gathering, and report
writing is just more noise. Specific questions put to the men at the stations were met with
"Beyond the scope of the mission" or "I have the science" or "It depends" (regardless
how much specificity I added). Scoping session or not, these are not new issues. The
navy knows the scope and has had plenty of time to collect preliminary data regarding
noise levels and their effects. I came away suspecting that the navy will compile data that
merely supports whatever conclusion they prefer and that any effect on the neighbors is
acceptable collateral damage. But I do hate feeling like such as cynic.
(b)(6)
1870
Port townsend , WA 98368

I find the increased volumn of growler flights to be irritating and disruptive to my work and
sense of well being. I do not feel that the environmental impacts of more noise and
disruption has been sufficiently studied regarding this the proposed increase in electronic
warfare practice. Surely there are other places to practice this that are not close to a
natural environment where people go to find peace,quiet and healing in Nature. Why
here? Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1871

I would like to give my full support ta NAS and it's operations and any expansion that is
(b)(6)
needed to keep us safe. Thank you,
(b)(6)
1872

I support NAS and their presence here on Whidbey.
(b)(6)
1873
Thanks for protecting us from so much strife in the world today. I am concerned about the
increased noise from OLF from the additional growlers. I am concerned about the
integrity of Ebey's Reserve as it relates to jet noise from OLF. Please work with the City
of Coupeville to assure the residents will not be adversely affected. Less jet noise is
better for all concerned!
(b)(6)
1874
I do not want you to add any more Growlers. The Growler is a lot more noisy than the
Prowler as it is. With more aircraft in our area when OLF is used, it will definitely cause
more noise. I suggest you have backup operations at Miramar or Twenty-Nine Palms. A
backup location is a good idea in case of storm, earthquake, etc. There are many citizens
in Coupeville who oppose the training at OLF. Why be unpopular with the public?
(b)(6)
1875
Greenbank, WA 98253
Noise study: The noise modeling study is inadequate in that it makes no attempt to
address the terror-inducing incidents when the Growlers turn sharply and accelerate at
treetop level, as I have personally experienced. The blast of sound came without warning
because of the high dense trees and the aircrafts extreme speed. The giant machine
flashed by suddenly before me and I ran off the road. My clients here (I am a Whidbey
Island CPA) include individuals who have sold their homes and left because of similar
frightening occurrences. Tourist-industry businesses, already negatively impacted by the
bad economy, are suffering when visitors are similarly frightened. Impact is not
adequately measured when only DNL and hearing loss is considered. I personally hate it
that Im now afraid of the aircrews that are protecting me from foreign enemies. The
incidents need to be acknowledged and considered in the study. Noise testing: Noise
testing should include these specific locations: o SR20 within 1/3 mile west of mile post
16 o Fort Casey Road at the location of the Reuble Barn (near Patmore Rd.) o The
intersection of Admiral and Byrd in the Admirals Cove neighborhood o The intersection of
Cox Drive and Island Ridge Way Location of public meetings: The Navy should hold
public comment meetings in communities affected by the most aggressive Growler
practices such as Greenbank and Freeland. No meetings are currently scheduled for
anywhere South of the Outlying Field, even though thousands of people live there and
the aircraft practice runs are carried out at low altitude over our (South of OLF) homes.
Not holding meetings in our neighborhoods makes it appear the Navy is not sincere in
soliciting public comments. Format of public meetings: The format of the meeting held in
Coupeville on October 28, 2014, was wasteful and contradicted the advice given to me
by the Project Manager. She advised me to gather my friends and neighbors and get
them to make lots of individual comments about the apparent bias of the Navy in
disregarding terror-inducing incidents and in holding all of its meetings North of the
Outlying Field. First, the meeting wasnt publicized in the South Whidbey Record, the
newspaper subscribed to by most residents living South of the OLF. Second, many of my
friends and neighbors who were at the meeting could not hear my comment or her private
remark. The meetings should consist of a leader soliciting PUBLIC comments that other
attendees can hear and question, thus encouraging and informing their own individual
comments. The format they used defeated the purpose. Advertising public meetings: By
publicizing the meeting North of the OLF the Navy excluded residents of the following
large neighborhoods and housing developments whose residents are to my knowledge
selling their houses and moving out of the Growler noise area: Admirals Cove,
Ledgewood Beach, Greenbank, Lagoon Point, Shangri-La Shores, Teronda West, and
Bon Air. These people subscribe to the South Whidbey Record, in which the Coupeville
meeting was not advertised. I live South of the OLF, am impacted by the Growler training
operations, and feel unfairly treated by the selective (excluding South Whidbey)
advertising. Scope of the Study: So far the alternatives include at best No Action, which
is unacceptable. An alternative should be: Growler bases and training are located
somewhere other than Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
1876
As a forty-three year resident of Coupeville, I want to express my support of the
continued FCLP flights at the Coupeville OLF, and for my TOTAL support for the EA-18G
Growler presence at NAS Whidbey Island. The anti-Navy group (COER) has no
consideration for the financial welfare of Whidbey Island residents. They are a bunch of
"New comers to Whidbey Island", and have no regards for the economic impact that the
closing of NAS Whidbey would have on our local communities. Please support the
(b)(6)
Growlers, and the NAS Whidbey Island. Regards,
(b)(6)
1877
I moved to Whidbey Isle in 1996. I listed to jets fly over my property BEFORE I bought
land. The jets were fine with me....til the new growlers arrived. I could sleep before when
you all flew, but not anymore. Who wants to be up at midnight, listening to touch and go
flights? Can't fly earlier in the day??? Of course, you can't hear yourself think if you are
outside and you are flying. Silly for some to suggest that it would be bad for the economy,
if you all quit flying in Coupeville. YOU all cause houses to go down in value. YOU CAN'T
FLY ELSEWHERE??? Times change as Ft.Worden and Ft. Casey are evidence of that.
Be a good neighbor and quit making noise??? I could call the police if neighbors were
having a party and making as much noise as you all...But I can't call them for Jets that
are noisier than originally planned. I had hopped to retire in Coupeville, but I will not do
that now....as you all make for poor neighbors.
(b)(6)
1878

Do whatever is necessary to keep the aircrew well trained and up to date for national
defense. The Growler is the needed tool to replace the Prowler, and keep up our current
mission.
(b)(6)
1879
I totally support NAS Whidbey Island and practice landings at OLF! They are needed and
we have a great support field for them to use.
(b)(6)
1880
Will increasing the number of Growlers raise the navy's security concerns and justify their
ignoring Washington's laws about controlling certain noxious weeds? Three in particular
proliferate on navy property: Scotch thistle, Scotch broom, and tansy ragwort. All are
prohibited because they displace natural species, and the tansy is poisonous. The navy
(in San Diego) has even lost personnel to poison hemlock, which also proliferates on
Whidbey. What will be the impact or more planes, environmentally speaking, with respect
to the aggressive spread of these pests? Please include this in the scope of the EIS as it
is an environmental concern.
(b)(6)
1881

I support NAS Whidbey & use of Outlying field
(b)(6)
1882

The health and technical/tactical proficiency of the Navy's airborne electronic attack
community is perhaps the single most important concern in our nation's worldwide power
projection capability, across all services. That community has resided and trained at NAS
Whidbey Island for the past 37 years. The health of the Growler community is dependent
on the ability to provide the best possible training for both aircrew and maintenance
personnel. There is no better location and training environment than that which exists at
the NAS Whidbey Island complex. That complex includes the operating base itself, the
relatively unencumbered training routes and airspace, and the all-important Outlying Field
Coupeville, at which aircrews train in that most demanding of environments in all of
aviation, day and night carrier landings. The Whidbey training complex simply cannot be
duplicated elsewhere, regardless of cost. And the cost involved in such an undertaking
would be prohibitive and unsupportable in any budgetary climate, much less that facing
our military today. One of the great strengths of the Navy's electronic attack community is
the synergism in all aspects - training, material and supply support, and economy of
resources - and economy of scale that results from the co-location of all of our Growler
squadrons and assets at NAS Whidbey Island. Regardless of the number of aircraft
ultimately procured, it is critical to keep all of our Growlers in one location - THIS location
- and healthy. It is most unfortunate that there exists on Whidbey Island a small number
of primarily latecomers who have disregarded known information regarding aircraft noise,
who have taken advantage of the lower prices of property in the Coupeville noise zone,
and who now contend that Growler operations must be moved "elsewhere". Within the
scope of community input to this EIS, it is important that those who will evaluate the
results see the complaints of these individuals for what they are - attempts to pass off the
results of their questionable judgments and actions in the purchase of property as the
Navy's problem. As noisy as they might be, overwhelmingly strong support for the Navy
and its operations on Whidbey Island has existed for over 70 years, and is as firm now as
ever. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
(b)(6)
1883
As Prowlers convert to Growlers at NAS Whidbey and by extension OLF field, I am in
favor of only keeping the current level of flights at OLF which is near my city. The present
level of aircraft noise is sufficiently loud and disruptive to Coupeville residents. IF more
squadrons and planes are stationed on Whidbey Island, I would recommend an
alternative site and not have Whidbey Island be the ONLY base Prowlers would be
stationed, this would relieve the possibility of increased jet noise on the community and
have a second base in the country as a backup/alternative for training than just Whidbey
Island. It is not clear how the number of flights would increase with the addition of more
Growlers to the Whidbey station and OLF but this area should not have the only base for
this type of aircraft. OLF is a WW2 era field that should not have a higher level of flights
that are very and harmful to the hearing of many local citizens. Coupeville and OLF are
within the Ebey's national reserve area and a large increase in Growler flights is not
compatible with such an area. Thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1884
freeland, WA 98203
A very few make a lot of noise! This counry needs a strong military, and Oak Harbor
needs the navy base. They have just spent thousands of dollars to erect concrete
barriers to keep the Hippies out.
(b)(6)
1885
freeland, WA 98203
A very few make a lot of noise! This counry needs a strong military, and Oak Harbor
needs the navy base. They have just spent thousands of dollars to erect concrete
barriers to keep the Hippies out. I did not like it, but I did my duty and served in the army
during viet nam.
(b)(6)
1886
Oak harbor, WA 98277

I am an owner of a 65 seat restaurant in Oak Harbor, Wa. We have been open since
2006. We wholeheartedly support the US Navy and its mission here in the northwest and
particularly Whidbey Island. We realize the ongoing need to train our pilots and realize
how important the base and OLF in Coupeville are for mission support. Noise has not
been an issue at our former home in Coupeville, our present home on the west Side of
Oak Harbor or at our restaurant located approximately 1 mile from the base. We also
appreciate the profound impact on the economy and the positive influence of the base in
the entire Island and Skagit county areas. We realize that without the presence of the
base and its continued growth that we would not be able to continue to operate our
business and the 14 people that we employ would be without jobs. The members of the
Navy that we come into contact with daily are professional, polite and a pleasure to know
and serve. We sincerely hope that the base will continue to grow and flourish. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1887

The training and housing the Navy is a vital part of our National Defense. NAS Whidbey
is an essential part of that defense . As a retired Banker I know first hand the economic
impact the base has on our community. We would have an economic disaster if the base
was to close. We live near the noise zone and the noise level has never been a problem.
Yes sometimes a little annoying but not a problem. I actually like the sound of freedom
flying over our home of almost 40 years. In my opinion this community enjoys and
welcomes the Navy, we have a great relationship and hope that will continue in the
future.
(b)(6)
1888

The training and housing the Navy is a vital part of our National Defense. NAS Whidbey
is an essential part of that defense . As a retired Banker I know first hand the economic
impact the base has on our community. We would have an economic disaster if the base
was to close. We live near the noise zone and the noise level has never been a problem.
Yes sometimes a little annoying but not a problem. I actually like the sound of freedom
flying over our home of almost 40 years. In my opinion this community enjoys and
welcomes the Navy, we have a great relationship and hope that will continue in the
future.
(b)(6)
1889
I have only one may concern. The car traffic on the Island over the last decade, has
grown a lot. Especially in the Oak Harbor area. I am hoping there is a comprehensive
plan to deal with it. Oak Harbor and the surrounding areas can become grid lock,
especially at certain times of the day. Its already a big problem, hopefully there is a
solution.
(b)(6)
1890
Oak Harbor,, WA 98277

OLF Coupeville was in operation long before those that are complaining about aircraft
noise arrived. A noisy minority gets a lot of attention and the media helps fuel it. Why
should the Navy cease flying at OLF Coupeville just because a few don't like it. OLF was
already there when they bought their property and homes. If they have a noise issue take
it up with the Realtor that sold them the property. Our carrier aviators need the training
OLF provides. I would bet not one of the complainers has ever experienced or seen a
naval aircraft landing on a carrier deck and especially a pitching one in inclement
weather. It takes a great amount of skill and confidence to do this regularly and
successfully and some of it is acquired at OLF Coupeville. I have little sympathy for these
selfish complainers. The Navy has bent over backward to accommodate them with
reduced flying hours, published schedules and rerouted flight paths. This is one time that
these people should be told, in no uncertain terms, that OLF Coupeville is there to stay
and will continue to be used to train our pilots and aircrews. If they do not like it they are
free to move to another location of their choice. Providing our naval aviators the best
training possible is paramount and anything else is secondary to that.
(b)(6)
1891

I am writting this letter to let you know that i am one of your supporters to not only keep
whidbey Island naval airstation open but to let you know that i supportEIS,EAgrowler.We
all know how important it is for our navy to have what ever it takes to keep them strong
and in good training.For the protection of our great Country and citizens of the
USA.Thank you all for your service and dedication to keep our country and other
countries safe.
(b)(6)
1892
First, I think it is dangerous to consolidate so many aircraft in one small place,
specifically, Whidbey Island and, more generally, in so few selected areas on either
coast. The danger of another Pearl Harbor is not unthinkable in today's hostile
international environment. It would behoove the DOD and the Navy to consider more
bases in the Midwest and central parts of the country, for example, co-locating the
Growler squadrons with the Air Force's planes outside Rapid City, SD, where there is
plenty of space for flying, better safety from external attack, and fewer people to disturb
with jet noise. Second, regarding NAS Whidbey and increased jet operations, I think the
Navy has to make sure that it stays within past noise restrictions and locations and not
increase or change its previous flight/noise patterns. Currently, jets are flying too close to
houses that were once outside flight patterns and over areas that are still outside
published noise abatement areas. That means people who carefully chose home sites to
avoid excessive plane noise are now subjected to extreme noise, to the point they cannot
use telephones or hear TVs, stereos, etc. while jets fly overhead. It is important to honor
restrictions that were in place for years and that people used as the basis for major life
decisions, like where to live. Third, bringing so many people to a small place like Whidbey
Island which has limited resources and a fragile infrastructure is not a good idea. This
island has water and sewage and drainage and landslide issues that a suddenly
increased population will worsen drastically. (And that doesn't even include the need for
increased social services.) This is not the place for the Navy to expand with high
population, high maintenance, high training requirement squadrons. Finally, my husband
is a retired Navy pilot with 31 years of service behind him. We love the Navy; our
son-in-law is a current Navy pilot; we want the best for our military. We do not think NAS
Whidbey is the best place for Growlers. In fact, we think the politicians in Washington, DC
are putting them here because, with a smaller local population, they think our voices,
concerns, and complaints can be ignored more easily than in other, more vocal locations
with higher visibility, and we resent that attitude and that intent, no matter how it is
colored or glossed over or explained away. Given the need for carrier quals and other
specific training needs, surely there are better places for the Growlers to be stationed
than on little Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
1893

I support the mission of NAS Whidbey, especially the EA-18G purpose and mission. Yes,
these new aircraft produce a bit more noise, however we might also consider the
alternative to not having these tools.
(b)(6)
1894

I fully support the Navy's mission on Whidbey Island, including the necessary
touch-and-go practice at the OLF. I live near Dugualla Bay, so I am no stranger to jet
noise. We were given information about the noise zones by our realtor, and I had lived
here when my husband was Public Works Officer in the 1980s, so I knew about the jet
noise and was fine with it when I moved back 5 years ago. It seems most of the people
who are doing the most protesting about it are folks who moved here in the last several
years and have no connection to the military. My second husband and I chose to retire
here partly because of the military facilities: pharmacy, commissary, NEX. He was retired
Army, and we have many friends who chose to retire here from other branches of the
service. If the Navy pulled out, we would all be devastated on several levels. For one, our
home values would plummet. For another our base privileges would evaporate. Plus we
actually enjoy seeing the jets and the P-3s flying overhead. It is the sound of freedom. I
always smile and thank God they are ours! I often pray for the safety of our young men
and women flying above and wish them well on their deployments away from their homes
and families. They make a lot of sacrifices, and their safety should not be in jeopardy
from closing an important airstrip for practice before they attempt to do it on a carrier on
rolling seas in the black of night. Tell the powers that be that I fully support the Navy here
at Whidbey NAS and whatever they need to perform their mission safely.
(b)(6)
1895

As the Mayor of the City of Port Townsend I formally requested that a scoping meeting
for the expansion of Growler activity at NAS Whidbey be scheduled in our community.
The Navy has granted this request and we are waiting for one to be scheduled. My
understanding that is that Electronic Warfare training project under consideration by the
Forest Service is a companion to this expansion. With that in mind I have the following
comments: o The actual scope of this project, and therefore its impacts, is little known
and poorly understood by our citizens. We are receiving many complaints about the noise
impact of increased Growler activity at NAS Whidbey even before the additional
expansion contemplated by the Navys current EIS. o Because the proposed location of
the Electronic Warfare equipment is on the western side of the Olympic Peninsula there
has been no outreach by the Forest Service to our communities located in the northeast.
o There are two soon-to-expire comment periods by two federal agencies, one for the EA
by the Forest Service and one for the EIS by the Navy. But the effects of these two
projects combined will be felt as a cumulative impact by all the communities of the North
Olympic Peninsula. For instance the noise impact portion of the Forest Service
Environmental Assessment deals only with the impact of placing the equipment on forest
land. It is silent on the impact of the Navys Growlers flying over and interacting with that
equipment. The communities of the North Olympic Peninsula have been developing an
effective tourism and education based economy in response to the decline the extractive
industries of timber and fishing. We are entirely dependent on our pristine natural
environment for the economic health of our local economies and stewardship of that
environment is central to our combined and individual futures. I am very concerned that
the effects of these two projects going forward together will greatly and negatively impact
the economies and many other aspects of living and doing business on the North
Olympic Peninsula. Outreach and public discussion have been inadequate to-date and
will be perceived by the public as a divide and conquer approval process if it goes
forward as currently configured. I specifically request that the Forest Service attend the
scoping meeting that the Navy will be scheduling in Port Townsend and be prepared for a
public discussion of the cumulative effects of the growth of the Growler training program
at NAS Whidbey and its companion project of locating Electronic Warfare equipment on
national forest land. Because it involves two federal agencies I am once again copying
this letter to my Congressional representatives.
(b)(6)
1896

The Growlers belong at Whidbey due to the airspace available, lack of population and the
all weather nature of Whidbey Island for pilot training. If you look at the choices for
alternative airfield, there certainly is non on the West Coast. The two leaders of the OLF
operations opposition, both have personal mis-representation issues. One leaves on his
sail boat in San Diego and tried to hijack the Ebbey Landing organization in his plight for
recognition, the other person actually signed a document when he purchased his home
which stated he understood he was purchasing a military noise zone, although he did not
publically state that until he was challenged by a local real estate agent. It appears these
two opposition leaders to OLF have a lot more to answer to, regarding their combined
credibility. After their credibility issues can be resolved, they should then be allowed to
present their findings, based upon their established credibility. Go Growlers!
(b)(6)
1897
Oak Harbor, WA, WA 98277

I am in support of the air operations at NASWI and OLF. These facilities are vital to the
training and preparation of our national defenses. We are here to serve as a support
structure for the Navy and its personnel.
(b)(6)
1898

I am absolutely for the Navy efforts to train and keep proficient and to be prepared for any
and all contingencies. Our country is dependent upon our military being prepared
(b)(6)
1899
set as default
I am high support of NAS whidbey.
(b)(6)
1900

We are one hundred percent in support of NASWI and would be thrilled to see more
Growler squadrons here. The Navy folks add so much to our community. We don't mind
the noise, we appreciate the sacrifices made by our military and their families.
(b)(6)
1901
La Conner, WA 98257
Our lives have turned into a nightmare due to the deafening and totally intrusive noise
that these jets create. I know this isn't news to the navy and I understand the need for
training. What I don't understand is the total disregard for the human toll that this takes on
the population anywhere near the jets flight and training area. The navy should move it's
training fields to an unpopulated area so the we and the navy could live in peace from
each other.
(b)(6)
1902
Vancouver, WA 98682
The sound of Freedom is required to keep our people safe. Freedom isn't free and
keeping our flight crews current isn't a choice for some noise weenie who moved in a few
years ago to make. I would live next to OLF Coupville or NASWI if I could. I have lived
under the flightpath of Miami International airport, McChord AFB, and get flights from
Portland International Airport overhead on a regular basis. It's life, and noise is essential
in our life whether it is listening to our friends talk or hearing trees fall in the forest.
Military airplane noise is essential to our status of freedom in the USA.
(b)(6)
1903

The jets are a joy to hear, and cause no problems for myself or my family, even when
flying directly overhead. Let 'em bounce!
(b)(6)
1904
Redwood Valley, CA 95470

Public Comment on the EA-18G Growler EIS - November 3, 2014 I am requesting a CD
and a hardcopy of the Final EIS/OEIS on the EA-18G Growler when released for public
comment in the future. Questions: How noisy is the EA-18G Growler when flying over
land areas? What type of fuel does the EA-18G Growler use? Please provide information
in your Final EIS/OEIS on the air contaminants in the EA-18G Growler Jet Fuel and any
mitigating measures to reduce the air, soil, and water pollution from these jet fuel
emissions. (List the type of jet fuel emissions.) Does the combustion of jet fuel emission
produce water vapor, a greenhouse gas? If yes, what is being done to reduce this
greenhouse gas? You may release my name and the State of California where I live at
this time. What type of activities will the EA-18G Growler be involved in over ocean and
land areas? (Please include experimental testing programs.)
(b)(6)
1905
Redwood Valley, CA 95470

November 3, 2014 - Public Comment on the EA-18G Growler EIS Questions: Will the
EA-18G Growler be involved in any electromagnetic or electronic warfare testing or
experiments in any National Forest Lands? Will the EA-18G Growler be involved in any
electromagnetic or electronic testing in the States of Washington, Oregon, California,
Idaho or Alaska? Will the new U.S. Navy Final NWTT EIS/OEIS include the activities of
the EA-18G Growler either inside or outside of the NWTT Range Map Boundaries? If yes,
please specify the locations. Will the EA-18G Growler activities over land and Pacific
Ocean areas be coordinated with the activities of the U.S. Navy Boardman Range in
Oregon? (Please detail) Will the EA-18G Growler conduct activities in Oregon or
California? (Please Detail these activities and provide map boundaries.)
(b)(6)
1906

EA-18G aircraft are much louder than the A-6 or the EA-6. I live immediately under the
aircraft landing pattern when they land on east to west runway. It appears to me they
could divide up landing patterns when doing normal landings and simulated carrier ops.
The noise generated by the EA-18 at times is unbearable. Use of runways north-south,
west-east, south-north, east-west and OLF Coupeville would distribute the noise amongst
all. I have lived at this location for 19 years and never complained. I now complain. I fully
understand carrier ops and the requirement to keep our aviatiors carrier qualified.
(b)(6)
1907
Anacortes, WA 98221
I am a resident of the Skyline area of Anacortes. I knew that the Prowlers were flying over
this area when we located here. At that time, there seemed to be a more consistent flight
plan that somewhat controlled the noise, by staying over Guemes and Rosario channels.
Things have definitely gotten worse with the advent of the Growler. With over 17000 hrs
as a pilot, I know that this noise can be reduced. There doesn't seem to be any
coordination between ATC and the least noise profile. The flight paths now seem to often
center on the most sensitive areas. Standardization would greatly help. In addition,
keeping the aircraft clean reduces the noise to the point where I think it would not be so
objectionable. Some pilots use flaps, some have gear down too, which causes incredible
noise levels. Some of the pilots I have talked to say they never use the gear. Again, it
should be consistent. The downwind could be extended, if necessary, but this doesn't
happen as it apparent that The San Juan Island residents are very vocal. Is it possible
that the P3 aircraft could make a right hand pattern when there is a mix? Couldn't this
midigate the speed conflict? It seems to me that if there is a sincere effort to reduce the
noise as much as reasonably possible, that our community can live with the increase.
This is especially true of the night FCLP operations. The airlines were required to operate
our aircraft in a manner that was not the safest nor most efficient, for noise abatement. It
can be done.
(b)(6)
1908
Growlerville, WA 18180
It would break my heart into pieces if you did not recommend Alternative Three with the
MOST OLF action possible. OLF fans from around the world will come to Coupeville and
like the Texan A&M 12th Man stand for the OLF action. Like the Seahawks 12th Man we
will stand and cheer loudly every use of Afterburner. Suck it, COER. I'm the best OLFer
in the game and when you try me with a sorry COER, 6 January is what you gonna get!
(b)(6)
1909

In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Council on Environmental
Quality regulation 1502, section 14 on Proposed Alternatives states, In this section
agencies shall: (f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the
proposed action or alternatives. The following mitigation measures should be fully
evaluated in the EIS. Mitigation shall be included in the Record of Decision along with
timelines for completion. 1. Flight paths for EA-18G Growler training from NAS Whibey
Island shall minimize flights over San Juan County to the greatest extent possible 2.
Training flights over San Juan County shall be above 3,000 feet elevation. 3. Afterburners
shall not be used on training flights when flying over San Juan County. 4. A Ground
Run-up Enclosure or Hush House shall be used for noise suppression during all Growler
engine run-ups and testing. 5. Commit to test, acquire and deploy noise reduction
measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. 6. Notify citizens
in advance of all Growler Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) at either airfield.
(b)(6)
1910

I would like the scoping for this EIS to include analysis of low frequency noise of the
Growler jets. In particular, I am interested NOT in averaging, but in actual measurement
of the effects of the actual moment-by-moment low frequency noise of the growlers which
may be described as "thunderous", "vibrating", and "roaring". This type of noise is
experienced when jets fly over and around, ans also when there are engine run-ups.
Furthermore this noise needs to be measured in San Juan County, where there is no
other type of white noise, such as freeway traffic, which would mask the jet noise.
(b)(6)
1911

(b)(6)
My wife
and I emphatically support all US Navy decisions, plans and actions on
Whidbey Island to provide the required airborne electronic warfare support to US military
forces.
(b)(6)
1912
1. The original EA in 2005 is invalid as it was based on the fact that the Growlers were no
louder than the Prowlers. The Growlers use afterburners which make them definitely
louder. The 2005 EA is therefore invalid and the Growlers have no business being
stationed on Whidbey Island period. The Navy is aware of this as it is documented in the
Wiley handbook of noise and vibration control. 2. The Navy requires oversight. They are
not conducting an honest EIS. For example, they should be using SEL vs DNL.
(b)(6)
1913
Lopez, WA 98261
It is unbelievable to me that the navy is considering expanding it's Growler operations in
this area. It is often like being under assault. It is necessary to cover one's ears, and stop
most activities for the moment.
(b)(6)
1914
Eastsound, WA 98245
I want the Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce the noise impacts of
Growler training flights on the citizens of San Juan County. In preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Council on Environmental Quality regulation
1502, section 14 on Proposed Alternatives states, In this section agencies shall: (f)
Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or
alternatives. The following mitigation measures should be fully evaluated in the EIS.
Mitigation shall be included in the Record of Decision along with timelines for completion.
1. Flight paths for EA-18G Growler training from NAS Whidbey Island shall minimize
routes over San Juan County to the greatest extent possible. 2. Training flights over San
Juan County shall be above 3,000 feet elevation. 3. Afterburners shall not be used on
training flights when flying over San Juan County. 4. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or
Hush House shall be used for noise suppression during all Growler engine run-ups and
testing. 5. Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric
F414 engines used on the Growlers. 6. Notify citizens in advance of all Growler Field
Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Carrier Controlled Approach training at either
airfield. The noise of these jets is huge, and it is affecting people's health and lives.
Please consider all mitigation measures.
(b)(6)
1915

Dear Sirs/Madams, I have been trying to keep a record of incidents where Growler noise
negatively impacts our lives here on the southern end of Lopez, but I have to admit, I
cant keep up. And now I hear that the Navy wants up to 36 more Growlers! I am asking
the Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce the noise impacts of Growler
training flights on the citizens of San Juan County. Please consider the following areas of
mitigation : 1. Flight paths for EA-18G Growler training from NAS Whidbey Island should
minimize routes over San Juan County to the greatest extent possible. 2. Training flights
over San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. 3. Afterburners should not
be used on training flights when flying over San Juan County. 4. A Ground Run-up
Enclosure or Hush House should be used for noise suppression during all Growler
engine run-ups and testing. 5. Further noise reduction measures for the General Electric
F414 engines should be tested, acquired, and deployed. 6. Citizens should be notified in
advance (in a general way, of course) of all Growler Field Carrier Landing Practice
(FCLP) and Carrier Controlled Approach training at either airfield. Thank you so much for
all you are doing for our country, and for considering our plea. We are patriotic Americans
too! Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1916
Sequim, WA 98382
We understand the US needs a strong trained defense system. However, we moved to
Blyn Miller Peninsula area 15 years ago to escape the crowds and pollution of San Jose
to this quiet pristine part of Washington. Now we listen to F18s many times daily noisily
flying over our home, rattling it like an earth quake; we cannot communicate to each other
when they're overhead. We strongly object to your plan to add even more fighter planes
to this Whidbey Airfield! It spoils the peace, natural beauty & quiet we moved here to
obtain! They also disturb the dogs and surely other animals that call this area home. Can
you at least use noise abatement on these planes? Why not practice somewhere in the
desert? Thank you for allowing me to comment.
(b)(6)
1917

I fully support NAS Whidbey and all the men and women there. They are a huge asset to
our community and the noise is a wonderful symbol of our freedom. Love it.
(b)(6)
1918
Lopez, WA 98261
Our coming to Lopez has again been ruined by the frequent horrendous noise (right over
our house) by the growlers.Suggestions: - Minimize overflights of San Juan County Publish notices of Growler training schedules at Ault Field - Avoid flying below 3,000 over
San Juan County - Reduce the noise impact of stationary engine run-ups - Minimize the
use of afterburners - Take technical measures to reduce engine noise - Do not increase
the number of Growlers stationed at NAS Whidbey Island - No funds should be expended
to acquire additional aircraft or expand facilities until a Record of Decision on the current
(b)(6)
EIS is completed. Can this not be achieved?
and family
(b)(6)
1919

For the last five years, I have lived on the southend of Lopez Island and have been
repeatedly terrorized by the incessant, loud noise of the Navys EA-18G Growler jets. I
am concerned for my own health mental and physical as well as the health of my
children, grandchildren and neighbors. I want the Navy to implement all feasible
measures to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on the citizens of San
Juan County. In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Council on
Environmental Quality regulation 1502, section 14 on Proposed Alternatives states, In
this section agencies shall: (f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not already
included in the proposed action or alternatives. The following mitigation measures
should be fully evaluated in the EIS. Mitigation shall be included in the Record of
Decision along with timelines for completion. 1. Flight paths for EA-18G Growler training
from NAS Whidbey Island shall minimize routes over San Juan County to the greatest
extent possible. 2. Training flights over San Juan County shall be above 3,000 feet
elevation. 3. Afterburners shall not be used on training flights when flying over San Juan
County. 4. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House shall be used for noise
suppression during all Growler engine run-ups and testing. 5. Test, acquire and deploy
noise reduction measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. 6.
Notify citizens in advance of all Growler Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and
Carrier Controlled Approach training at either airfield.
(b)(6)
1920

i do not feel there is any significant impact from Jet noise. I enjoy the sound, it makes me
feel safer. When we bought our home we knew of the noise and signed the paperwork
willingly. I am not deaf or hard of hearing, and I don't see any significant effect on our
pets.
(b)(6)
1921

Let them bounce!!!
(b)(6)
1922
This is a message to the webmaster. Your Environmental Impact Statement for the
EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations website is missing out on at least 300 visitors per
day. I have found a company which offers to dramatically increase your traffic to your
website: http://bysb.eu/4rq9 They offer 500 free visitors during their free trial period and I
managed to get over 15,000 visitors per month using their services, you could also get lot
more targeted traffic than you have now. Hope this helps :) Take care.
(b)(6)
1923

I work at Sperry Penninsula, and myself and others on the landscaping crew regularly
have to stop what we are doing to cover our ears for minutes at a time as a growler
makes a low slow pass over the property. This also happens at my home on the North
end of the island but seems to be less often, thankfully. I am hopeful that through human
innovation, some sort of silencer or muffler might be added to planes in training over the
San Juan Islands and greater Puget Sound Area. Maybe planes could remain very high
in the sky over inhabited areas. Over all, I hope for no added growler/prowler activity over
the the San Juan islands and greater Puget Sound and would be so thankful if current
activity were reduced either in number of flights or at least in their audio and air pollutive
impacts. Thank you, kind regards,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
1924
Anacortes, WA 98221
Noise impacts from Growler training flights are already disruptive and uncomfortable
during flights over Decatur Island. Like other island residents, we place high value on the
peace and quiet of the islands. The Navy should fully evaluate noise mitigations for
current flights, and not increase noise over the San Juan Islands. Flights should only be
in daylight hours, over 3,000 ft, should employ noise reduction technologies on engines,
not use afterburners, and reduce flight paths over the San Juan Islands. My concerns
include annoyance due to noisy flights, waking sleeping children, disrupting
converstations, and impact to property values. Thank you for your consideration of these
comments.
(b)(6)
1925
Anacortes, WA 98221
The noise issues from Growler training have become intolerable. What used to be an
occasional annoyance for the "sound of freedom" is now affecting everyday life. I cannot
hear people while talking on the phone as they fly over. I want the Navy to implement all
feasible measures to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on the citizens
of San Juan County. In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Council
on Environmental Quality regulation 1502, section 14 on Proposed Alternatives states, In
(b)(6)
1926
Seattle, 98177
1502, section 14 on Proposed Alternatives states, In this section agencies shall: ... (f)
1.
FlightpathsforEA-18GGrowlertrainingfromNASWhidbeyIslandshallminimizeroutesoverSan
Juan County to the greatest extent possible. 2.
TrainingflightsoverSanJuanCountyshallbeabove3,000feetelevation. 3.
AfterburnersshallnotbeusedontrainingflightswhenflyingoverSanJuanCounty. 4.
AGroundRun-upEnclosureorHushHouseshallbeusedfornoisesuppressionduringallGrowler
engine run-ups and testing. 5.
Test,acquireanddeploynoisereductionmeasuresfortheGeneralElectricF414enginesusedon
the Growlers. 6.
NotifycitizensinadvanceofallGrowlerFieldCarrierLandingPractice(FCLP)andCarrier
Controlled Approach training at either airfield.
(b)(6)
1927
Anacortes, WA 98221
Having lived in the area for 45 years I have never experienced such loud noise from jets.
I currently reside on Guemes Is.I moved here for the quiet, peaceful attributes.NO
LONGER! Why do jets fly over here? Why do they do that afterbuner thing?I am a
patriotic American.The sound is intolerable. Thank you.
(b)(6)
1928
Edmonds, WA 98026
A lot of people are complaining about the jets over the San Juans but not me. The roar of
the jets is the roar of freedom! This is like all of the people who built homes around
Boeing and are now complaining even though they work there. I salute Whidbey Island
NAS. Thank you for your service.
(b)(6)
1929
Seattle, WA 98105
As a homeowner in San Juan County, I want the Navy to implement all feasible
measures to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on the citizens of San
(b)(6)
1930
Anacortes, WA 98221
as a island home owner I made this lifestyle choice to be in a quite environment,in the
last few years I can say it is anything but quite or peaceful with the amount of jets roaring
overhead,to add more jets is just not something I want to live around. This would have
Economic and health consequences. As it is when the jets are going over you stop
talking or hearing until they are gone,the noise is that loud.Please think of your neighbors
(b)(6)
in the San Juan Islands. Thank you,
(b)(6)
1931

I support the Navy....as I understand it the Growler is not as noisy as the Prowler. I am
not qualified to advise on how many planes, etc. I find the street noise more difficult to
live with than the Navy noise.
(b)(6)
1932
Decatur, WA
1. Flight paths for EA-18G Growler training from NAS Whidbey Island shall minimize
routes over San Juan County to the greatest extent possible. 2. Training flights over San
Juan County shall be above 3,000 feet elevation. 3. Afterburners shall not be used on
training flights when flying over San Juan County. 4. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or
Hush House shall be used for noise suppression during all Growler engine run-ups and
testing. 5. Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric
F414 engines used on the Growlers. 6. Notify citizens in advance of all Growler Field
Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Carrier Controlled Approach training at either
airfield.
(b)(6)
1933

Twice as many EA-18G Growlers means twice as much noise pollution and we have
plenty of that already from the existing Growlers at Whidbey NAS. Your unlikely to get
any approval from those living on Camano Island, especially when the Growlers fly from
the Coupeville airstrip after dark. Give us a break and leave the other Growlers where
they are.
(b)(6)
1936
Anacortes, WA 98221
I am commenting on the scoping process for the EIS for EA-18G Growler Airfield
Operations at NAS Whidbey Island. My comment boils down to one word: NOISE. At
times the noise from the existing number of planes is very disruptive of sleep and other
activities. Any increase in the number of planes should be managed in such a way as to
not increase the number of low, noisy fly-overs of residential areas. In my opinion it
doesn't make sense to have the "sound of freedom" increase the negative impacts on the
quality of life of living in such a beautiful area. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1937

City Council passed resolution 14-38b in support of the EA-18G Growler Aircraft. See the
following link: http://www.oakharbor.org/uploads/documents/678214_38_b.pdf Please let
me know if you would like a hard copy of the resolution mailed to you. Thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
City Clerk
(b)(6)
1938
I am a resident living adjacent to the Ledgewood Beach area, and hence extremely close
to the flight path of planes entering and completing the pattern at the Outlying Field, and
am writing to express concern about the transition to F18s, and now the planned addition
of 36 more F18s, and the subsequent health consequences. First, let me state I fully
understand the need for pilots to be trained and the justly warranted concern for their
safety in action. With this in mind, and recognizing that there would be noise near our
property during practices, we spent many days on Whidbey observing flights of the A6s
that were then training, and talking to the Liaison Officer at NAS, Whidbey, about
proposed future use. We subsequently signed the relevant waivers acknowledging noise,
when we purchased our property. For the next few years the training continued in intense
bursts at infrequent times of year, apparently keeping within the previously negotiated
scope of operations (subsequently ascertained as 6,120 per year.) While unpleasant, and
particularly distracting when trying to get to sleep on the post-dusk runs, the levels were
pretty well as expected. Then the real problems began, first with the transition from A6s
to F18s. We had previously been informed by the Liaison Officer that the expectation was
that the new planes would be no more disruptive although they were expected to
generate more noise, the noise cone would be narrower, and hence limited to a much
narrower flight path. These are the issues. First, although the flights are not supposed to
be over land, as they pass our area, all too often the first run of the series of pattern
flights passes directly overhead, putting us immediately under the greatest concentration
of noise. Second, the noise of the F18s is much greater; almost painful, to the extent that
when Im outdoors and they suddenly burst on the scene, I have to remove my hearing
aids to reduce the discomfort. While this is unpleasant for everyone, my greatest concern
is for the hearing of small children who may well be impacted for a lifetime. Third, as is
well established, the number of operations conducted in this location was well in excess
of the total previously agreed limit, and that in the first half of the year alone. It was at this
point that the lawsuit was filed, triggering the temporary cessation of flights for the
remainder of 2013, and the instigation of the more limited EIS. It was bad enough that the
Navy was already exceeding earlier agreement about frequency of operations. What is
worse is the intention to add an additional 36 F18s and compound the problems still
further. It would appear that, far from listening to the input of concerned residents, the
Navy has simply thumbed its collective nose at us. This is perhaps most obvious when
looking at the methods of conducting the EIS; not only is it being conducted by the Navy
itself a fine case of the fox guarding the henhouse but is based solely on computer
models. Where are the real-time measurements? The accurate recordings of noise as
experienced at ground level by residents at different points in the flight path? In summary,
I believe residents would have greater confidence in the good intentions of the Navy if the
EIS was conducted by an independent third party, and if the EIS was based on actual
measurements rather than computer models.
(b)(6)
1939
Please do not turn this EIS into a joke. The issue is not how much additional noise and
damage will be caused by the new Growlers, but how much total damage and noise is
caused by the total Growler operation at OLF Coupeville. Sound level measurements
should compare the ambient noise level without the presence of airplanes with the noise
level these planes produce when flying 50 feet above our houses. These planes have
caused significant loss of hearing to me, and my blood pressure shoots up whenever the
planes are flying overhead. Both of these health issues should be addressed by the EIS.
In addition, the EIS should include a report on the damage to animal life in the area,
including all mammals and birds. It should also include a report on damage to trees and
other plant life. The flights of these airplanes has turned our lives into a living hell. I do
hope the EIS takes our complaints seriously.
(b)(6)
1940
COUPEVILLE, WA 982393999
The EIS should address the issue of how growler noise contributes to hearing loss, heart
disease and strokes. The affect of growler noise on the human population is certainly the
most important issue for the EIS. Secondly, the EIS should take into account the impact
of growler noise on animals and plant life as well.
(b)(6)
1941
Dear Sirs: I am against further expansion of fighter aircraft at Whidbey for several
reasons. The first is that the base is no longer appropriate for the Puget Sound
community. When base was established during WWII, there was an emergency, and
relatively no one living in the vicinity. Coupeville and Oak Harbor each had fewer than
1500 residents, and the surrounding Sound was lightly populated. At that time there were
few environmental concerns. You could build, dig wells, dump sewers into bodies of
water, hunt, blow up stumps, do about anything without bothering other people. Today,
only the military attempts to be immune to community restrictions and group safety/health
standards designed to protect and perpetuate the beautiful area we inhabit. The entire
Seattle/Sound has grown up and beyond the temporary need for an air station in its
midst. At the least the huge impact of the Growler fighter is inappropriate. Secondly, the
air traffic patterns have changed with the arrival of the Growlers. My wife and I have live
near Penn Cove for over thirty-five years, and purposely investigated where the
published noise patterns fell. We no longer have the just rare flyovers, but persistent
routes that were NOT used in the previous three plus decades of our tranquil beauty. We
can live with the multi-engine aircraft, and maybe quieter more restricted fighters, but
Puget Sound is growing, the base should not. Perhaps, the Yakima Firing Range would
be a viable location for bounces. It's near by, has thousands of acres to buffer it, in
addition to being already fairly desolate, and the fighters might be integrated into
providing realism etc. to current training manuevers. Thank you; (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1942

No Way!!!! I have enough health issues. More than that, this area is unique in the world,
wi5h sea life and protected areas. Of all the places, this is the most insane!
(b)(6)
1943

It is an unfortunate fact that noise travels better over water than open land. The line of
sight and noise caused by the NAS directly impacts our residence on the South end (We
are fortunate enough to be on water) As such the current activities already cause a
disruption to the noise and often come at unexpected times. At the very least it would be
nice to know when the heaviest activities were to occur so we could plan our life
accordingly. Furtherm ore I am in agreement with the following: I want the Navy to
implement all feasible measures to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on
the citizens of San Juan County. In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
the Council on Environmental Quality regulation 1502, section 14 on Proposed
Alternatives states, In this section agencies shall: (f) Include appropriate mitigation
measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. The following
mitigation measures should be fully evaluated in the EIS. Mitigation shall be included in
the Record of Decision along with timelines for completion. 1. Flight paths for EA-18G
Growler training from NAS Whidbey Island shall minimize routes over San Juan County
to the greatest extent possible. 2. Training flights over San Juan County shall be above
3,000 feet elevation. 3. Afterburners shall not be used on training flights when flying over
San Juan County. 4. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House shall be used for noise
Carrier Controlled Approach training at either airfield. Thank you. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
1944
Langley, WA 98260
Since the introduction of the EA-18Gs to the NAS, the sound level is noticeably louder. It
is so loud, in fact, that I could not conduct normal conversations with my girlfriend at her
home during flyovers. The windows and walls of her house shake when the planes pass.
I would not consider a home or locating my business in the Coupeville area solely due to
the extreme intrusion of these planes. It's a wonder people in that community can hear!
1970
1970
1970
1970
1974
1974
1974
1983
1995
1995
1997
2012
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2024
2028
2032
2046
(b)(6)
2047
Lafayette, LA 70505
As former resident and Navy wife, I am for the proposed action as it would not only be a
benefit for the NAS Whidbey Island, but for the community as well.
(b)(6)
2048

(b)(6)
(b)(6)
November 14, 2014

(b)(6)
EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager Naval facilities Engineering Command
Atlantic 6506 Hampton Blvd. Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS RE: EIS scoping for
the U.S. Navy Environmental Impact Statement for the EA-18G Growler Airfield
Operations at NAS Whidbey Island, WA Dear Naval Facilities Engineering Command:
Please address the following with your EIS for NAS Whidbey, proposing a possible
increase in the Growler aircraft: 1) Consider not concentrating all Growler and Prowler
aircraft at NAS Whidbey. Consider the ease of deployment of these aircraft worldwide.
Consider the greater impact upon the community by locating all at NAS Whidbey.
Consider the difference in maintenance cost. Consider the housing available for all staff.
Consider the proportional impact on schools, including the delay of impact aid payments
to schools. 2) Consider aircraft engine testing upon noise and pollution. Consider building
sound walls to direct the noise upwards, out to sea, or to absorb some of the noise. 3)
Consider the impact of the Navys presence upon property value. Compare Admirals
Cove property values to another area of similar density housing but less impacted by
Navy aircraft noise. 4) Consider notifying the public surrounding and downwind of a fuel
dumping incident in a timely manner. Make transparent to the public the location,
frequency, and environmental impacts of fuel dumping. 5) The Navys contribution to the
regions economy is widely publicized. Analyze the change in this impact with a lessening
of Navy presence over a ten year period following. 6) Consider the Day / Night Noise
level increase by adding up to 44% more Growlers with the proportional increase in flight
noise generated. 7) Consider the increase of SEL (single event) noise violations by
increasing aircraft flyovers above private land. Compare to OSHA noise standards for
noise levels tolerated without hearing damage. Or compare to other appropriate noise
regulatory standards established to safeguard the public. 8) Consider Lmax jet noise
occurrences incident to private property. Do these noise levels exceed regulated limits?
How would an increase in the Growler population at NAS Whidbey affect these noise
violations? 9) Consider the noise and pollution tolerance limits of the community.
Increased flight capacity is not only a function of runway capacity, maintenance facilities,
and staff housing available. Increasing aircraft overflights also affects the community
surrounding the Navy facilities. What are the limits for this community? 10) Consider the
impact of increased staff accompanying the proposed Growler increase upon the
surrounding community: For example, Navy personnel uses public transit, but they dont
pay any sales tax at the Navy Exchange to contribute to the funding of this public transit.
Navy personnel drive local roads yet they usually register their vehicles at their home
state, thereby not contributing to local needs. Navy personnel commute from off-base
housing to work, contributing to pollution and the need for road maintenance. Are they
paying a fair contribution? No. The cost of Navy personnel compensation and benefits
should be borne by all Americans, not mostly by the Navy base local community. 11)
Consider locating the training squadron with up to 25 Growlers at a remote base with lots
of elbowroom and a sparse surrounding population. Transfer pilots in groups to this
remote facility for training as needed by conventional passenger aircraft. Leave the
Growler aircraft used for this training at this remote base. 12) Consider the Navys lack of
compliance to regulations established by the FAA such as for aircraft speed (91.117)
and minimum safe altitude (91.119) that other aircraft must comply with. How does
flying up the Skagit River valley at an altitude of only 200 above the land below impact
noise and the quality of life for the public below? Does sudden extreme noise contribute
to automotive accidents on the roads below? Does the sudden extreme noise initiate
avalanches that threaten climbers in the surrounding Cascade Mountains? Justify the
Navys choice to violate standards that all others must obey. Is collateral damage
acceptable to the Navy? Are pilots monitored and reprimanded for speed, altitude and
safety violations? Are these restrictions part of instructions of training, and repeated
often? Please make these reprimands transparent to the public, including the details. 13)
Consider aftermarket noise suppression devices available for Growlers for non-wartime
use. Analyze the cost, training impact, and noise generated by the implementation of
these devices. 14) How would each of the proposed Growler increases affect air traffic
from Ault Field and Coupeville? Provide flight path use and frequency for each. Route
over water whenever possible. 15) Consider safety: History shows that accidents do
happen. The potential for large loss of life in the built up area surrounding NAS Whidbey
is very real. Route aircraft over water whenever possible (note, not necessarily whenever
convenient). Consider compliance with altitude and speed regulations. They both
contribute to safety. 16) Consider the environmental impact of the proposed Growler
increase, such as wetlands loss, commuter pollution, and aircraft pollution. 17) Finally,
consider carefully the impact of aircraft noise and pollution upon the surrounding
community. What are the limits of noise, safety and pollution that are tolerated by our
community? Monitor on-the-ground SEL and Lmax noise levels, not just the Day Night
Average. Consider the history of activism in opposition to Navy intrusion to the lives of
those in the surrounding community. Consider law suits. Consider the noise impact upon
children in and out of schools. Consider the Navys appropriate and timely contribution to
the community (vehicle registration fees, sales tax, property tax, impact fees paid to
schools). Be transparent about NAS Whidbey changes over time (overflights, noise,
pollution, and environmental), and how the proposed Growler increase would affect the
community. History demonstrates that a strong defense is a successful deterrent against
the aggressive actions by our enemies. But please accomplish this strong defense with a
minimum collateral damage to the US citizens you are protecting. Thank you. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
Yes, I would like to be on your mailing list No, I dont care if my name is
kept private Yes, I would like to receive a CD of the draft EIS when available, and I hope
to see all issues addressed that I have raised here.
2048
(b)(6)
2049

Keep the planes flying over Whidbey. We need the Navy and we need to keep our
training facilities working full time-MAIN BASE AND THE OUTLING LANDING FIELD.
(b)(6)
2050
port townsend, WA 98368

For the sake of our environment, I would like to recommend that the loud aircraft planned
for increased practiceon and near Whidbey be located in a more remote area. The
uninhabited desert, for example, would be a better place. My opinion of course. The
noise level affects would be minimized. No place is perfect. But Whidbey and the Puget
Sound area are environmentally sensitive places and increasingly inhabited.
(b)(6)
2051

If military wants continued community support, it should listen. Residents and orcas are
being disturbed. Find another practice place.
(b)(6)
2052

If military wants continued community support, it should listen. Residents and orcas are
being disturbed. Find another practice place.
(b)(6)
2053
Eastsound, WA 98245
Please stop flying these planes where they can be heard in San Juan County. My house
was shaking at 9:30 AM from the noise. At work, we have to stop everything until the
noise stops every time one of them takes off. I live/work on Orcas near West Sound.
Growler noise threatens the tourism economy of our otherwise pristine islands---and it is
our biggest industry. You can't possibly compensate us for the disruption and damage
caused by noise on this scale.
(b)(6)
2054

The current level of noise from the Growlers on Whidbey is excessive, intrusive, and
extremely irritating. This noise affects people's hearing and daily lives not just on
Whidbey but also here in Port Townsend. More research must be done on the effects of
Growler noise on marine life and birds. Please do not increase the use of Growlers here
on the Olympic Peninsula.
2055
18 November 2014
Secretary of the Navy the Honourable Ray Mabus
Office of the Secretary of the Navy
2000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20350-2000
Re: Navy EA-18G EIS Study and Request for Alternative Three
Dear Secretary Mabus;
Thank you for taking my letter. I want to ask you to please buy
35 more Boeing EA-18G Growlers for Americas Navy please as
per Alternative Three in the Navy EA-18G EIS Study. As a
proud OLFer, namely a photographing advocate of OLF
Coupeville; I hope for more action at OLF Coupeville please.
Also SECNAV, I told the Navy EIS Staff repeatedly with joy, glee
and photography such as the photo to starboard of those great
afterburning EA-18Gs at OLF Coupeville my support for Alternative Three. They told me to
write you. So here I am.
But my support of EA-18Gs is about more that beautiful afterburner, SECNAV. Its about the
fact the EA-18G saves lives in war by denying the enemy the ability to use the electromagnetic
spectrum, which in turns denies the enemy the ability to use Surface-to-Air Missiles/SAMs, Anti
Aircraft Artillery/AAA, and most humanely of all the EA-18G continues the proud legacy of the
EA-6B in jamming the Improvised Explosive Devices/IEDs saving countless lives. For that alone,
humanity is permanently in the Navy VAQ Wings debt.
Furthermore, Alternative Three and the 35 new Growlers will also force hard choices onto
Central Whidbey Island and require the imposition of Accident Potential Zones (APZs) around
OLF Coupeville thereby slicing down the threat of encroachment. Most of the agitation to
close OLF Coupeville is efforts werent made to protect OLF Coupeville until now.
Respectfully submitted;
(b)(6)
growlernoise@gmail.com
http://Flickr.com/Avgeekjoe
2056
Page 3
1
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
(4:00 p.m.)
(The PII disclosure statement was read to the following
commenter)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Well, it's
(b)(6)
And my main concern is that we have a two-lane
bridge that will go down one of these days.
it's when.
the full length of the island and it's not sufficient --
It's not if,
My next concern is we've got a two-lane highway
10
it's barely sufficient now for the traffic, and it certainly
11
won't be sufficient for any more people as far as I'm
12
concerned.
13
am concerned about the schools, if they're capable of
14
handing -- handling any of the extra students that would
15
come with -- with -- with the new airplanes, I guess.
16
that's -- that's the main thing.
17
that I have to worry about traffic and taxes and -- but,
18
that's where I leave it, I guess.
19
don't -- by the time they get to more people, why, I'll
20
probably be dead so I don't have to worry about that.
21
do pay taxes now, and $5,000 and if it's going to have -- if
22
I have to build another school, that's going to be more, and
23
I don't feel that I should be responsible for all that extra
24
expense.
25
It's already a hazard.
And the next thing is I
And
I won't live that long
I don't -- you know, I
But I
I don't know what else, but I think the bridge
LIKKEL and ASSOCIATES

www.likkelcourtreporters.com
(800) 686-1325
depos@likkelcourtreporters.com
2056
Page 4
1
and the traffic -- the highway is my biggest concern.
is.
they're going to have to give us older people some time that
we can go to town or there -- so they can stay off the road
or not bring so many people in.
before the Navy.
good.
biggest thing was the guys maybe hauled the toilet off your
property during Halloween.
It's too dangerous out there now for us.
Either
Oak Harbor was really nice
Really -- we had nice -- everybody was
I mean, they didn't do anything bad back then.
Really.
The
They didn't do anything
10
bad.
11
couple of them smoked.
12
We didn't have any of that.
13
They did.
14
Everybody had church and they always went on Sunday.
15
were a different group of people.
16
I guess that's it.
The biggest thing the high school boys ever did was a
Now they've got drugs and alcohol.
*
(Th
And everybody went to church.
I don't think there was anyone that didn't.
17
18
It
PII d
19
They
It's hard to get used to.
f ll
20
MS
21
d 170 W
22
l k
23
F
h
EIS b f
BONNIE NEWKIRK
d R
I f
d
h

Ok
O k H
h
dd
b
N
I'
98277
d
A d I
f
A d I
h
l
k
ld
h
ld
(800) 686-1325
2057
Page 4
18
19
commenter.)
(b)(6)
20
(b)(6)
Okay.
I'm
(b)(6)
21
and
22
like to say that I feel that the Navy needs to finish their
23
first EIS before they start adding more.
24
like to say that I feel that the military needs to do
25
something about their staff -- I don't know what you call

Oak Harbor, 98277.
And I would
And I also would
(800) 686-1325
2057
Page 5
1
them -- people that work for them because they go around
town telling everybody they're dropping fuel on the farmers
in Dugualla Bay and so people will not shop there and
there's nothing we can do about it, but as the Navy tells
everybody, oh, no, they don't.
The other thing is I'd like to know what they're
going to do to protect the civilians' quality of life, and
why they can't fly -- why they have to fly after 10:00 at
night.
That's what I want to say.
And I am -- I am very
10
concerned about the different locations that you have here
11
at this meeting because nobody gives you any answers and
12
they're never correct, according to their own documents.
13
And that's it.

T
8 00

(800) 686-1325
2058
Page 10
1
I l
Wh db
fl
I l
d h
I'
lk d
bl
b
fl
h
l
l
h
h
l
d d
f l f
bl
l
Af h
fl
hb
*
11
12
commenter.)
(b)(6)
13
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
14
(b)(6)
15
was here -- I was here in -- until 1997.
16
years and returned in 2007.
17
before the flights were not that bothersome.
18
when I came back how much louder the Growlers would be, and
19
I certainly didn't understand that they would be replaced
20
more than one on one with the Prowlers.
21
Coupeville, Washington, 98239.
I left for ten
At the time that I was here

I had no idea
I did not wear hearing aids when I came here in
22
2007.
23
not just because of age but because of the amount of sound
24
of the Growlers.
25
outside working and the Growlers are flying.
I do now.
I am sure that my hearing has deteriorated
I wear ear plugs as well as muffs when I'm

I have almost
(800) 686-1325
2058
Page 11
1
reached the point now where I have to wear them inside as
well because of the sound.
I have written a statement and have presented
that in the comment box, and I would like to have that
recorded.
important to this particular circumstance.
I think what I said is -- is very important and
(Th
PII d
f ll
10
MR
11
5 0 F
12
KEN PICKARD
C
f C
Ok
ll
I'
ll
Th
l f l
I l
d
M
13
17
Th
18
dd
19
20
22
I'd l k
G
dd
21
FCLP l
ld l k
h
bl
h l
f b
f
dl
h
I'd l k
EIS
I'd l k
OLF C
dd
ll
h
23

(800) 686-1325
2059
Page 7
1
h
f
d
h
f
S
I'
commenter.)
(b)(6)
live at
there.
10
I'm
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
and I
-- actually, I don't live
I exist -- Oak Harbor, 98277; telephone number,
(b)(6)
11
And I would just like to say I -- I don't want
12
any more aircraft at Ault Field or at NAS Whidbey.
13
need to go, the EA-18G.
14
polluting.
15
the foundation of my house, and they have made my mules deaf
16
to the point I'm about ready to put them down.
17
they'd get out of here.
18
insane.
19
or China Lake or -- or in Arizona someplace where they don't
20
bother anybody, including their own personnel.
21
They're too loud.
They
They're too
The vibration has shaken my house and cracked
I just wish
They're driving me absolutely
They need to fly at some place like Yakima Valley
I am tired of being told they don't fly over our
22
houses.
23
they fly less than tree level over my house.
24
I'm crazy about that, that that's not correct, that they fly
25
500 feet, which is not correct.
They fly to the runway.

That's unacceptable.
And
And I'm told
And I just would like them
(800) 686-1325
2059
Page 8
1
to leave.
And that's about it.
I think -- well, the pollution needs to be
addressed, too, because they keep -- the air, you can't
breathe the air in my backyard.
So -- and that's it.

*
11
12
I b
h
13
14
ld
b
'
h
l
ff
18
lf
19
h
d
b
l
h
h
'
I'
I'
h
f
l d
'
l
l
d I'
Th
d b
ff
N
fl
'd
l h b
Wh
d ff
21
20
ld h
17
l
h
16
24
15
22
I
d
EIS
25

(800) 686-1325
2060
Page 8
1
A d
I
dd
'
k
b
b
ll
ll
d
h
b
'
commenter.)
(b)(6)
10
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
My residence is
(b)(6)
,(b)(6)
Greenbank, 11
miles from the base, where I've lived for 28 or 29 years.
11
I bought the property there knowing the base was
12
there, and we purposely bought down there because we were
13
told that the base would have -- we'd not be affected by the
14
base, which we weren't for the -- until perhaps two years
15
ago, whenever these damn things came in.
16
systemic lupus.
17
affects her health because of just the -- I'm getting ahead
18
of myself.
19
Now my wife has
Whenever they fly she -- it seriously
I came here tonight I'm not sure why because I
20
see no difference tonight than the one from last year.
21
see the same kind of people, very nice people doing the EIS
22
study from the east coast, and I'm glad they've got jobs.
23
mean, they're milking it for as much as they can, this
24
consulting company.
25
same.
That's great, but the issues are the
The base is -- the World War II era base is too small

(800) 686-1325
2060
Page 9
1
for the planes they have on it, they're trying to use on it.
They're violating their own safety procedures with the crash
zones.
residential community.
community.
things, I understand that a $50 muffler could have been put
on them, a noise suppressor, but they didn't do that.
the mission of the thing, which I realize has nothing to do
with the EIS, but I even wonder the value of that.
They've got public schools, they've got a whole
10
They don't give a damn about the
They fly late at night.
The noise of the
And
I can't begin to describe how opposed I am to the
11
things.
12
the people there got so angry at the noise the Navy -- the
13
military shut down the base and are spending billions on a
14
landfill outside of the city somewhere and building a whole
15
new base just for the people of Japan.
16
more about them than us.
I just -- I know that in Yokohama, Japan, I think,
I guess they care
17
I understand that in Virginia the governor and
18
the senators are against these things going there so they
19
didn't.
20
like Moses Lake, for instance, or build another base
21
somewhere.
22
What was it?
23
years?
24
someplace.
25
I think there's other places they could fly out of,
I mean, after all, we can afford ten -- what?

2.25 billion a week in Afghanistan for ten
So what's that?
Let's build another little base
But these things are so intrusive on Whidbey

(800) 686-1325
2060
Page 10
1
Island and they are seriously impacting the quality of life
on Whidbey Island.
fly low over their house and the windows rattle.
said a window is blown out.
said her husband, who did a couple tours in Afghanistan,
when they fly over his house he has flashbacks.
under the bed.
Taliban.
have to say.
I've talked to people who are -- they
And it's just endless.
*
(Th
PII d
12
MR
14
638 C
15
*
d
ARTHUR G
L k
20
OLVER
C
d d '
d
h
f
l
Ol
f ll
O L V E R
98239
ld b
l
h
h
f
I l f
d
h
l 1997
h
I
I d
23
ll
2007
I d d
2007
21
24
So anyway, that's all I
16
22
He dives
13
19
One woman at a public meeting
He thinks he's being attacked by the
10
11
One guy
I
h
h
d
h
ll
d
f
ff
d
h
I'
25

(800) 686-1325
2061
Page 5
1
S
l
d
ll
l k
ll
'
l k
l bl
12
A d I'
h
14
I k
l k
G I
d I d
I'
I
'
b bl
l k
A d I
l k
9 0
13
6 0
I d
l
I d
I
I
'
I d
l k
ll
'
l
I
'
d
k
17
18
commenter.)
19
(b)(6)
20
(b)(6)
21
(b)(6)
Coupeville, 98239.
(b)(6)
e-mail is
23
or anything like that.
24
there?
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
My phone number is
And what else did you need to know?
22
25
My name is
(b)(6)
Oh, my
I don't have a screen name

Do you want my comment?
THE STENOGRAPHER:

Please.
Are we
Yes.
(800) 686-1325
2061
Page 6
(b)(6)
We've lived here about a
year, and we are still in the phase of excitement about the
planes flying over.
noise would be reduced if the experience were shared.
example, finding a place over there parallel to the OLF
where one can sit in a car or something like that for a few
minutes and watch the planes land and take off.
comment.
And I think that some complaints about
10
(Th
PII d
11
14
15
That's my
f ll
12
13
For
MR
937 B
'
STEPHEN THOMAS
A
d h
d
ll
I'
O k H
I '
197
A d
'
h
P
Th
I l
A d
h
N
l
19

(800) 686-1325
2062
Page 17
commenter.)
(b)(6)
is
(b)(6)
10
(b)(6)
My name is
(b)(6)
; address
Coupeville, 98239; mailing address, (b)(6)

Coupeville, 98239.
I had a bunch of comments I wanted to make.
11
No. 1 was -- oh.
12
up -- avigation easements, also known in some cases as joint
13
stipulation in the vicinity of OLF Coupeville, these
14
easements provide landowners consent for the EA-6B or
15
follow-on aircraft of lesser or comparable noise level to
16
fly at an altitude of 800 feet AGL based on a maximum of
17
10,000 flights per calendar year.
18
Growler is actually louder than the Prowler.
19
this easement was for follow-on aircraft of lesser or
20
comparable noise levels.
21
already surpassed what was already promised.
22
The av -- avigation -- let me look that
So I'm concerned that the

And so this --
So I'm concerned that we've
And then the other big thing is 10,000 flights
23
per calendar year, and in 2011, 2012, and heading that way
24
in 2013 we were close to approaching 10,000 a year.
25
we're bringing in an additional 36 aircraft how is that

So if
(800) 686-1325
2062
Page 18
1
going to impact this 10,000 flights per calendar year?
we going to go over it?
over the noise level of the Prowler, and we're going to go
over the 10,000 flights per calendar year.
comment.
Are
It sounds like we've already gone
That's my first
Noise.
middle-of-the-road solution.
leave or deal with it as it's been.
technological solution to make the planes quieter?
I believe that we can find a

It's not black and white, Navy
But cannot we find a
Boeing's
10
got the 787 that's a lot quieter than any other aircraft.
11
So can we not scope requirements for the aircraft that gives
12
them the performance that they need but also makes them
13
quieter?
14
America could solve, and I think it's an important one.
15
I'm very concerned, I'd really like to see a
It seems like that's an engineering problem that
16
point of interest, I think they called it, measurement on
17
Rhododendron County Park which is where the soccer fields
18
and baseball/softball fields are where the kids play.
19
very -- it's right on Patmore Road, and it gets very loud
20
when the kids are out there playing for an hour and a half
21
for practices several times a week and the planes are
22
flying.
23
(indicating).
24
out.
25
plugs stop play and put their fingers in their ears.
It's
The kids wear -- that's why I wanted her to join

The kids wear foam ear plugs but they fall
They can't hear the coaches.

Kids who don't have ear

I've
(800) 686-1325
2062
Page 19
1
been out there.
are.
It's physically painful how loud the planes
The other park that's immediately across the
street is Patmore Pit, which is the biggest and most popular
dog park in the county.
walking your dogs out there, not only the humans but also
what they're doing to dogs, but it -- it's terribly loud out
there.
And the same thing.
If you're
So I'd really like to see some kind of mitigation
10
on the planes themselves so that they're not as loud.
11
that can't happen, if it's absolutely impossible, what are
12
they going to do to protect our kids?
13
county doesn't have the funds to buy more park land and
14
support more park land.
We've been trying to get a new
15
field closer in to town.
It just hasn't happened for
16
several years.
17
our kids a safe place to play?
18
recreation facility where there could be indoor soccer
19
fields and other recreation that the kids could have
20
indoors.
21
If
Can the Navy -- the
So could the Navy provide assistance to give

Even consider an indoor
I remember talking to that guy (indicating).
22
There's -- a challenge that we have being residents is when
23
can we invite people from out of state, for example, to come
24
visit us and not have the planes flying?
25
that we can predict.
There's no way
And when we have people come they're

(800) 686-1325
2062
Page 20
1
saying, "How can you stand living here?"
beautiful place.
but if somebody comes for a week and they're flying for the
whole week that's what they take away, how terrible it is.
We live in a
We know the planes don't fly all the time,
I've read editorials in the newspaper from people
who come and rent a house on Whidbey and say it's the worst
vacation they've ever had.
better planning to be able to invite people or for other
outsiders to plan their vacations to Whidbey without being
10
11
So how can we get a little bit
so heavily impacted by noise?

I guess going back to the kids and playing, is
12
there a way that we can coordinate -- the community can
13
coordinate better with the Navy?
14
releasing what their weekly schedules are for using the OLF,
15
but is there a way that we can tell the Navy our kids have
16
practice from 3:30 to 6:00 these several weeks?
17
schedule it around their practices?
18
I know the Navy is
Can you
Just -- I think that's my biggest concern, is
19
really our kids and what's happening to them.
20
concerned about having such a large increase if we're
21
already kind of at the top level of what they're saying they
22
were going to fly, number of flights that they'll be having,
23
and that the sound is actually louder than it used to be,
24
which they had said it would be fewer flights and therefore
25
be less noise over all, and it's kind of gone the other way.

I'm really
(800) 686-1325
2062
Page 21
1
I think that's it.
(Th
PII d
MS
I l
920 V
f ll
V I C K Y
A d
Pl
h
d
f
I l
C
f
I l
'
h
ll
I b l
h
I b
ll
12
98282
10
14
PATRICIA GORDON
13
11
b
ld
Th
l
b
f
d
h
h
C
15

(800) 686-1325
2063
Page 3
1
(4:00 p.m.)
(Th
PII d
MS
l
h
P
f
Th
Th
'
fl
EIS
14
ld
LORI TAYLOR
20
M
13
f ll
d
f
h
l
b
'
l f
ld
d
'
f fl
fl
l
f
'
h l
15
16
17
I
b
18
Pl
19
h
l
l
d
h
f
21
f
h
d
fl
22
23
commenter.)
24
25
(b)(6)
My name is
here in Coupeville at
(b)(6)

(b)(6)
I live
in
(800) 686-1325
2063
Page 4
1
Coupeville, 98239.
of the CD.
receive a CD of the draft EIS when it's available.
And I -- I would like to receive a draft
This (indicating) offers a re -- I would like to
My concerns are the safety and effectiveness of
the military at Ault Field.
just -- is not very distant, is scheduled to deliver a 9.0
earthquake.
the -- is that the geological clock, which isn't as accurate
as you'd like that to be, is that -- the last time this
The Cascadia fault, which
And today's best estimate by geologists is
10
fault tripped was in 1700.
11
tsunami created was great enough to do damage to three
12
cities in Japan.
13
closer than that.
14
And when it tripped in 1700 the
We're much closer than -- we're much
So I -- and the -- and the fault is scheduled
15
is -- is scheduled to deliver this earthquake.
16
concern -- my concern is when the earthquake comes Ault
17
Field is a liability and not an asset.
18
is at risk because that's where they're parked.
19
risk because their equipment would be not available.
20
mean, they're -- they're disenfranchised.
21
to me to be a very poor place to park them.
22
I'm coming here to comment.
23
And my
I mean, our military

We're at
I
And so it seems
And that's why
What I have discovered is, like, the city of
24
Seattle and some other cities in Washington state are very
25
aware and very on top of the problem.

They can tell you
(800) 686-1325
2063
Page 5
1
which warehouses will collapse at what level of earthquake.
Some at -- some at, like, 6.0, not 9.0.
very poorly aware of this.
don't like to see -- I don't like to see G.I.s in
unnecessarily risky situations and I do like to have them
available for -- for emergencies.
I know my city is
Probably by choice.
But I -- I
And I guess the other piece of information -- I
don't know if I related to you -- is the estimate of the
damage by this next Cascadia earthquake suggests that it --
10
that the impact on the United States will be three Katrinas
11
in terms of economic disaster.
12
serious.
13
like the noise.
14
that, but boy, I don't -- I don't like the risk that we --
15
we have with Ault Field where it is.
And I'm -- I'm -- I understand these people don't

I guess I might say, well, I can understand
16
17
(Th
PII d
18
MR
20
21
277 9281
22
23
25
So that's my story.
f ll
19
24
So it's -- it's really
h
h
JAMES DILLARD
C
A d
ll
h
d ll
d57@
l k
98239
d d
l
D
J
M
d
I d
D ll
k
'
1602
(202)
Oh
h
?
?
THE STENOGRAPHER

(800) 686-1325
2064
Page 11
1
h d
ll b
h
h
I h
I h
h
d h
b
d I
ld l k
d
h
commenter.)
(b)(6)
10
(b)(6)
Okay.
I'm (b)(6)
I live
11
at
12
resident of Coupeville, lifelong resident.
13
address -- and I do want to get copies of the Draft EIS.
14
And so my e-mail -- well, my mailing address is
15
(b)(6)
16
(b)(6)
Coupeville.
Coupeville, Washington, 98239.
17
Third generation
My e-mail
(b)(6)
My e-mail is
(b)(6)
These are things that I would like the EIS to
18
address:
19
the Growlers at a more suitable, safe, user-friendly
20
location with less encroachment on civilians.
21
to evaluate having an alternative to the OLF Coupeville site
22
for FCLP landing practices.
23
impacts of all Growlers at NAS Whidbey because when Core
24
sued the Navy the understanding was that they were going to
25
do an EIS on all -- the cumulative impacts of Naval Air
I'd like you to address the alternative of basing

I'd like you
I'd like you to address the
(800) 686-1325
2064
Page 12
1
Station Whidbey Island.
twisted that into we're going to do an Environmental Impact
Statement on the 13 additional expeditionary Growlers and
the possible 36 more that we're seeking funding for, and
they're not addressing the impact of the 82 Growlers that
are already there.
never done an EIS on the 82 Growlers that are already there.
We're going to sue the Navy as soon as the EIS is
And instead the Navy has now
And they've never addressed the impact,
done -- we can't sue them now -- to challenge the scope of
10
the EIS because they've bootstrapped in these first 82 and
11
they've never -- so they're not doing an EIS on the
12
cumulative impact of all Growlers at NAS Whidbey.
13
what needs to be done.
14
going to do.
15
That's
That's what we thought they were
They're not doing it.
I think that the EIS should include an analysis
16
of the electromagnetic warfare training program on the
17
Olympic Peninsula and on the coast because it's functionally
18
related to the bringing of new air -- of these Growlers to
19
NAS Whidbey.
20
impact on all historic structures and culturally significant
21
historic landscapes, raw lands in the Ebey's Landing
22
National Historic Reserve.
23
impact on visitors to the reserve, people that are hiking,
24
camping and trying to enjoy the natural soundscape that we
25
had here before the Growlers came.
I think that the EIS needs to address the

The EIS should address the
(800) 686-1325
2064
Page 13
1
Let's see.
What else?
Those are the -- those
are the main points that aren't being addressed that do need
to be addressed.
testing of actual real sound here instead of modeling.
Computer model analysis is what they've done so far.
what they like to use, is computer-generated modeling.
also the averaging of the sound over day/night is misleading
as to what the actual sound is.
multiple-location, real-life testing of sound from the
I think that the Navy should do its own
That's
And
So there needs to be
10
Growlers at various locations around central Whidbey Island,
11
and around the region really.
12
13
Those are my main points.

some written comments too.
14
15
(Th
PII d
16
19
MR
d I l
I l
20
23
RANDALL STECKEL
153 P
I
I l
21
22
f ll
17
18
I've already submitted
d
d C
I h
Ad
h
I
l
d
h
d I h
1990
I l
d
h
d ll S
k l
l'
Wh db
f W
I d
ff
d f ll
l
f
h
h
fl
24

(800) 686-1325
2065
Page 3
1
(4:00 p.m.)
commenter.)
(b)(6)
I was the wife of a Prowler
pilot for over 20 years and understand the life and needs of
the Navy.
The Growlers are significantly louder than the
Prowlers.
They're flying a greater number of flights than
the previous EIS, and they're flying -- sorry -- they're
10
flying a greater number of flights than the previous EIS and
11
than the Prowlers were previously flying.
12
My daughter plays soccer under some of the
13
fields, the outlying field, and the noise is so overwhelming
14
that we almost sometimes can't play, even with ear
15
protection.
16
I appreciate the contributions of the military
17
but feel the military is a tool of the populous, not vice
18
versa.
19
noise and the number of the flights and repair the
20
relationship with the community.
21
Please consider what you can do to attenuate the
22

(800) 686-1325
2066
Page 21
commenter.)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
I live at
Washington, 98282.
:
(b)(6)
My name is
, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
, Camano Island,
And my comment is that I believe Camano Island is

experiencing a great deal of noise and we're not in the
10
noise zone specifically.
11
and was going to buy in Coupeville, but because of the
12
question as to how many planes would come and the noise at
13
that time I bought on Camano.
14
no paperwork that informs you that you are in a noise zone.
15
Island County does inform you when you buy on Whidbey.
16
Realtors do not tell you.
17
I came to these meetings last year
There is nothing on Camano,
So I've come here tonight.
The
And one, they say
18
they do not go to Moses Lake because, actually, the skipper
19
said they do not own any property at Moses Lake.
20
you should buy property at Moses Lake because there's fewer
21
people.
22
devaluing their property for, really, no good reason.
23
I believe
You're impacting people with noise, basically
I have kept records since last April when I moved
24
there.
25
next day it's 11 times; the next day it's 27 times.
They at times go over my place 29 times a day.

The
(800) 686-1325
2066
Page 22
1
will -- I have recorded all this.
separate e-mail.
I will send it in a
And so basically I'd like you to do something to
study Camano and warn people because you should not -- you
should not have your property devalued and you should not
buy property where you're not informed.
it.
Let's see.
And I think that's
I guess my only other two comments would be you

shouldn't be doing an impact report using the Navy.
It
10
should be contracted to outside people because obviously,
11
you know, you're not going to get a perspective that's not
12
biased.
That's all.
13
They should have a meeting on Camano Island.
14
None of the people there can comment about how noisy it is
15
there.
16
here.
You know, they had one over in Port Angeles and

And why Anacortes?
17
How much noise can they get?
So yeah, they definitely need to have a meeting
18
over there and inform people that they're having these
19
meetings.

(800) 686-1325
2067
Page 13
1
h
dd
C
h
l
G
'
Th
h
dd
d
h
'
d
d
d l
Th
d l
l
'
A d
l l f
ld d
d h
12
l
d
l k
d l
11
10
Wh
'
d f
l Wh db
I l
ll
Th
I'
13
15
16
commenter.)
(b)(6)
17
:
(b)(6)
18
and I live at
19
Island.
20
sit in Island County.
21
My name is
(b)(6)
, Admiral's Cove, on Whidbey
I am a judge in the state of Washington.
I do not
I am a judge off of the island.
I have lived on the island full time for about
22
the last ten years and I have owned a home on the island
23
since 1990.
24
of the Growler aircraft.
25
residence, which is in Admiral's Cove, I signed a piece of
I live in an area that is in the flight pattern

When I moved into my initial

(800) 686-1325
2067
Page 14
1
paper knowing I was in a noise zone.
built about ten years ago is within a few blocks of my first
home.
and they have never been a problem for me or my family.
My second home that I
I have lived under the Prowlers since I can remember,
A few years ago a new jet came to the island.
immediately knew something was different and I was later
told it is called the Growler.
created incredible health hazards.
hundred decibels in my home for hours on end from the jets.
In my neighborhood it has
I have had over a
10
If you step out into the street it reaches over 130
11
decibels, and this goes on for hours on end.
12
I am an insulin-dependent diabetic.
Since I have
13
been dealing with the Growlers I am now taking more insulin,
14
especially on the days they are flying.
15
shattered by the Growlers.
16
glass window broke.
17
throughout my home are now broken.
18
paintings come off the wall.
19
because you can't close your door because of the heat.
20
My back window was
I was in my home when the plate
Every seal on my double-pane windows

I have had dishes and
It is unbearable in the summer
A neighbor down the street from me, after an
21
afternoon of the Growlers flying, had a heart attack and had
22
to be taken to the hospital.
23
my neighborhood who has cancer.
24
hell.
25
There is another gentleman in

This has made his life
One of the things you will also notice is the

(800) 686-1325
2067
Page 15
1
dogs in the neighborhood are wearing collars.
asked the neighbors about that they will tell -- they tell
me that the dogs are now licking or biting themselves after
the planes start flying.
And when I've
In addition to that I have personally seen
children in the neighborhood start crying when the jets are
flying overhead.
people are very, very aggravated, angry and upset at what
the Navy has done to our neighborhood.
10
And I know, generally speaking, that
I am a former Army officer and I served in the
11
Judge Advocate General's office.
12
the United States and I cannot believe that my own
13
government is doing this to me.
14
upset that the Navy is able to get away with this.
15
was a situation involving a private corporation or an OSHA
16
matter the Navy would have been shut down as soon as the
17
Growlers started flying.
18
health, safety and welfare of my community is beyond me.
19
I am a proud veteran of
As a judge I am incredibly
If this
Why the Navy is able to damage the
Oh, in addition, as a judge, I am very keen on my
20
hearing sense.
21
half ago, and I now need to pay $3,000 for hearing aids
22
because of the damage done to my hearing from the jets
23
flying over my home.
24
25
I needed a hearing test about a year and a
The last thing I would like to say is that

Whidbey Island has always been a very wonderful place.

(800) 686-1325
2067
Page 16
1
purposely moved here from the city because it is a nice
community, and this Growler situation has caused the
community to turn on itself.
scared to speak out about this for fear of retaliation,
especially from those in Oak Harbor, and I know for a fact
that politicians will do nothing about this because there is
more money and more votes to be had in Oak Harbor.
People in our neighborhood are
I have been told by Congressman Larsen's office,

when I spoke to someone named
(b)(6)
that I need to look
10
at the OLF flight schedule and make sure that I am out of my
11
home when they are flying.
12
and I have been told that I should get myself a pair of ear
13
phones like they wear on a flight deck.
14
told unofficially that the Navy knows this is a serious
15
problem but they're not going to do anything until they're
16
told to.
17
I have called over to the base,
I have also been
And this evening I spoke to the base commander,
18
Mr.
19
this transcription.
20
when I simply asked him if this will stop he was very clear
21
it will not.
22
I very politely explained what I just said in
(b)(6)
He gave me a long-winded answer.
And
I cannot sell my home because of the price values
23
that have dropped.
24
neighborhood are not selling because of the Growlers.
25
a public servant.
And quite frankly, homes in my

I am
I don't have any bank accounts that I can

(800) 686-1325
2067
Page 17
1
tap into to move, and this is just a terrible, terrible
situation for a United States Army veteran, proud citizen of
this country, and a member of the judiciary.
(Th
PII d
MS
510 R
B
1122
10
11
JANE GEDDES
d
ll
ll
98239
I h d
N
M
98239
f ll
14
h
d
f ll
G dd
dd
dd
P O
d
l
13
Th
12
15
That's it.
d
f l
f OLF C
l
ll
f
h
bl
h
EA 6B
l
16

(800) 686-1325
2068
Page 6
1
10
11
commenter.)
(b)(6)
12
(b)(6)
I'm (b)(6)
I live
13
at
14
we've lived here since 1974.
15
staying, doing all they can do for training of the pilots
16
and keeping them safe and whatever they need to do should be
17
done.
18
Oak Harbor.
It's Penn Cove.
And
And we're very much pro Navy
19

(800) 686-1325
2069
Page 6
1
10
(Th
PII d
11
f ll
12
MR
13
14
937 B
'
15
STEPHEN THOMAS
A
d h
d
ll
I'
O k H
I '
197
A d
'
Th
I l
A d
h
N
l
19
20
commenter.)
(b)(6)
21
22
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Address?
Well,
Oak Harbor, Washington.
23
Been here for 40 years, and used to fly down here
24
and clean the deer off the runway for the planes to come in.
25
I think it's a real need for the runway.

It saves gas, time
(800) 686-1325
2069
Page 7
1
and everything else, and the wear and tear of the pilots and
aircraft and what they have to maintain.
stay.
(Th
PII d
10
f ll
So I'm for it to
MS
l
BONNIE NEWKIRK
170 W
d R
O k H
I'
N
ll
98277
I d
k
'
d I
l
b
(360) 679 3600
11
A d I
ld
l k
I d
'
12
22
23
24
I'
fl
Th
fl
h
b
f b
ld
Th
l
l
h
'
'
fl
'
bl
A d I'
h
A d
ld
h
fl
25

(800) 686-1325
2070
Page 7
14
15
16
commmenter.)
(b)(6)
17
18
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
, Oak Harbor, 98277.
(b)(6)
I just -- I want
19
to say I'm pro-military.
20
military that they know what they're doing.
21
need practice time and need support of the city and the
22
people that live here.
23
have it.
24
the people that I worked with it was one out of all of them
25
that didn't agree with us.
I'm one to give respect to the

And I know they
And I want them to know that they
I worked for the State of Washington, and of all

Everybody there supports the
(800) 686-1325
2070
Page 8
1
military.
help.
could do, I'm not a business owner or anything, but I'm --
I -- I want a strong military and I want to support that we
have here.
And I wish there was more that I could do to
If there's anything that a regular community person
(Th
PII d
10
MS
R
d
d M
VERA PITSCH
12
b h
13
ll
14
15
ll
16
Th
'
ll I h
Af
I l
Th
'
15
h
b
ld
h
h
d
l
d b
A
'
Wh db
20
b
h
'
2527 W
19
23
JERRY PITSCH
MR
22
f ll
h )
18
11
21
l
M
d
'
d
W
24

(800) 686-1325
2071
Page 3
1
(4:00 p.m.)
commenter.)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
My name is (b)(6)
I live
-- just like (b)(6)
-- Oak
at
Harbor, Washington, 98277.
Dugualla Bay highlands, approach area to Runway 2-4.
It's south of Dugualla Bay area,
I first came to Whidbey in 1970 as an A-3 pilot
10
and noticed that the entire area was all woods and thought
11
yeah, that would be a great place to have a house some day.
12
Came back six years later and much of the area started to be
13
developed.
14
number of trees was probably half of what it was when I
15
first saw it.
16
And while there was still some trees, the
Came back again another ten years later and then
17
there was a big push on everybody wanted their view.
18
need cut down the trees and cut down more trees.
At one
19
point they threatened lawsuits on two properties.
I cut
20
down 19 trees on one property and 25 on another.
21
that I had addressed the fact that the noise issue would
22
increase.
23
and air cleanliness issues, but they wanted their view.
24
25
You
And before
And on top of that we were talking about water
It reached a point where at one point I said no,

we're -- if you want more trees we're going to court.

I'm
(800) 686-1325
2071
Page 4
1
not -- and that's when they backed off.
months after cutting the trees the majority of the houses
where the people are complaining all put their houses on the
market to move because it increased their value and they
were going elsewhere anyway.
that.
Within weeks and
And I was very upset over
With the EF-18s I've noticed a little bit more
noise, especially on after-burner takeoffs, sometimes
rocking the ground, but compared to other aircraft we've had
10
here I cannot say that it's a significant amount over the
11
A-3s or A -- EA-6s, A-6s that have been here over that
12
30-year period.
13
I think much -- or I mean -- two issues here.
14
Better flight path management will help avert some of the
15
noise issues as occasionally we've had airplanes flying over
16
the houses where normally they come down through the valley
17
over the water.
18
there, and part of that relates possibly to the fact that
19
the soil is being loosened with the after-burners vibrating
20
the soil because you can feel it when they're in
21
after-burner, which is much like Miramar where I was
22
stationed.
23
We have had some mud slide issues out
We had the same issue down there.

One recommendation might be if I understand about
24
20 years ago it was 600 million to relocate a base.
25
probably at least double that now.

It's
Probably the issue down
(800) 686-1325
2071
Page 5
1
at Coupeville might be that the Navy buys up all that
property and turns it into Navy housing, thereby solving two
problems.
you've now solved the noise complaints by virtue it's now
Navy property.
there.
That's all I've got.
One, we don't have the people complaining, and
That's a recommendation.
From there I'm going to turn it over to there.

Thank you.
(Th
10
13
MR
dd
W
18
LYLE BULL
2968 N
h S
98277
ll
I '
h
b
A d I
I
R
l l
Th
'
F
d
f ll
B ll
O k H
b ll@
l
A d I
d
P
l
d
h
L l
lf
16
17
A d
C
14
15
PII d
11
12
And go there from
ll
d
I d
h
'
19
20
21

(800) 686-1325
2072
Page 17
1
Ok
d I b
I'
h
I
k
d
d
h
'
197
d I
19 2
ll
h
h
ll I h
ld
f f
l f
W '
h
h d
'
h
l
l
f f
h
d
10
commenter.)
(b)(6)
11
12
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Oak Harbor, Washington, 98277.
I'm here in
13
support of NAS Whidbey Island, the Growlers, and Naval
14
aviation in whole.
15
economy and provides jobs not only involving those of
16
aviation, but the community at large, with restaurants,
17
hotels, services that wouldn't be here without the base
18
being here.
19
hampered to the point of regression back into the days when
20
services that we take for granted now will be no longer here
21
because there will not be the funds to support them.
22
I think it is a tremendous boost for the
The economy would be stifled and actually
What else do you want me to say?
No, I really
23
think that the community should support the base and stop
24
harassing and drop the lawsuit really because it's a waste
25
of money, taxpayer money, as we keep dragging this out.

(800) 686-1325
2072
Page 18
1
Being honest and open is what we need to be, but a detriment
to our society is what we should not be in hampering our
safety and security.
I would love to have the Blue Angels come and fly

over Oak Harbor and do a demonstration and an air show.
21
'
22
'
23
'
24
h
h
?
I'
f
d
Sh
Sh
I
l
25

(800) 686-1325
2073
Page 20
1
l k
'
h lf
h
f
d
d
b
'
fl
h f
ld
d l k
'
ld b
M
I
h
h d l
k
Y
k
10
11
Commenter.)
(b)(6)
12
13
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Oak Harbor, Washington.
I apparently live
14
just under five miles from the runway, one of the runways at
15
NAS Whidbey.
16
and the noise from when the jets are sitting on the runway,
17
whether that be testing the engines or they are in line to
18
take off, causes my house to rattle.
19
chair and I can feel the vibration through it.
20
hand on the Sheetrock of my house and feel the vibration.
21
This is terribly crazy-making to me.
22
a good thing to be exposed to, and there are times when it
23
goes on for six hours at a time.
24
25
And I frequently call because the vibration
One evening I left

(b)(6)
(b)(6)
I have an overstuffed
I can put my
I don't think this is
I believe his name is
a message and it was ten after midnight and --

(800) 686-1325
2073
Page 21
1
that constant roaring was continuing, and I finally fell
asleep at 12:30 and to my knowledge it was still going on.
So that constant noise is really terribly burdensome to me.
And of course the jet noise when they come flying across
my -- over the top of my house, I'm not certain what the
altitude is where they should be at, but sometimes they're
quite low.
Mostly because of the -- what I have found to be really lack
of cooperation on the part of the Navy.
10
And I would like to see no Growlers here.
No comprehensive
plan to measure the noise.
11
A lot of people, I believe, feel that with the
12
information we got from the county and the 85 decibels --
13
pardon me, I think it's 65 decibels.
14
remember.
15
very difficult when, in fact, that is an average, a daily
16
average or something.
17
that at least the Navy could put out some noise-measuring
18
devices.
19
talking to them about doing that because that way they could
20
at least take some responsibility for monitoring noise
21
they're contributing to the community.
22
opinion right now that there's no way it can be really well
23
measured, particularly when I call the base and tell Mike on
24
his machine that the -- they're -- the engines are running
25
at 10 after 12:00 at night and he calls me the next morning
I can't quite
But for a lay person to try to understand that is
It's very confusing.
I would think
I, as a property owner, would be interested in

Because it's my
(800) 686-1325
2073
Page 22
1
and says, well, I'll try to find out.
would be doing that.
there and who's doing what at certain times?
I don't know who
Don't they know what is going on out
This is all just perplexing to me.
It doesn't
seem as though enough is happening to try to manage the
noise.
call me back.
I've made a couple of contacts.
Navy gets calls from people and they're being cursed at, no
And for a very long time no one from the Navy would
Terribly frustrating.
They do now because
But no wonder, if -- if the
10
wonder, because how frustrating it is to reach out and ask
11
to be called back as invited by the Navy's own voice message
12
and no one bothers to call you.
13
express it.
14
would be made so upset that they would call and yell at the
15
Navy, I get it.
16
I don't know how I can
It's just a huge middle finger.
And how people
I totally get it.
So I would love to see no Growlers here.
I don't
17
think the Navy's treated the people that live here fairly.
18
I don't think there's been as much cooperation.
19
they would like to think that we'd think that, but still
20
after these previous meetings I don't feel that I'm getting
21
really much of a response or respect to my concerns.
22
I think
Thank you.

(800) 686-1325
2074
Page 9
(b)(6)
4
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
My first name is
(b)(6)
Oak Harbor, Washington,
98277.
zone because that's where I live.
considered a war zone is the EA-18G flies directly over our
house at 100 to 200 feet off our home.
reason that these planes can't go somewhere else.
And I like to add on that as the zip code is the war

And the reason that is
And there is no
The
10
military has millions and millions of acres that they can
11
send these aircraft.
12
We've had to replace our well, our neighbor's had
13
to replace their well pumps because of the sides sloughing
14
in on them because of the vibrations from these planes.
15
windows have cracks in them, our foundation has cracks in
16
it, all because of this new aircraft.
17
there since long before the base, and we never had these
18
problems before these specific aircraft.
19
only planes that have caused this problem.
20
Our
Our home has been
And these are the
They are -- they have tremendous health risks
21
associated with them due to heavy cancer, the hearing damage
22
of 150 decibels plus going over, especially over us.
23
cancer, the fuel that they're burning is highly lead
24
concentrated.
25
safe for anybody to be under.
The
I mean, it isn't -- isn't anything that's

As well that they limit what
(800) 686-1325
2074
Page 10
1
we can do and what we cannot do with our property.
family predates the base as our family came here in 1909.
Now basically we're stuck.
property except for do farming.
limited on what we can grow as a crop.
permission in specific areas to grow specific crops.
where is that good for anybody?
mean, we would like to do other businesses but we can't do
other businesses because of this specific aircraft.
10
And our
We can't do anything with our

That's it.
And we're
We have to get
And
I mean, we're farmers.
As well, we have people that are currently coming
11
to our -- our you-pick farm that have told us they're not
12
coming back.
13
the reason is because of this aircraft.
14
horrendous noise from it is deafening people.
15
return because it's a danger to them and their kids.
16
They've stopped coming.
17
Pass.
18
coming to Whidbey Island anymore because of this plane.
19
it just makes more sense that the Navy see that they are
20
harming people and they are intruding upon civilians'
21
quality of life.
22
They won't be back to the island.
And they --
It -- the
They won't
They used to stay out at Deception
They're not staying there anymore.
They're not
So
And the soundscape of Whidbey Island is just
23
being destroyed.
24
all.
25
which was basically -- it was built in 1920.
I mean, you can't go outside anymore at
You're stuck in your house.

We're stuck in our home,

I mean, we
(800) 686-1325
2074
Page 11
1
can't -- we can't leave our home.
because it's 130 decibels inside our home, and if we go
outside we have to wear double ear plugs.
ear plugs and ear muffs.
decibels.
your farm.
We can't be in our home
We have to wear
That only brings is down to 120
You have to leave your home.
You have to leave
You can't work and live under these planes.

So my suggestion is as everybody else, they need
to go.
Twenty-two more?
This specific aircraft is not right for here.

It's just going to be a huge disaster.
10
It's going to be -- as a lot of people have said, there's
11
only so much air space and it's just going to be so
12
dangerous that if, when -- if not now, if when, it's going
13
to be a plane crashing, you know.
14
civilians want and it's not what we want for the person in
15
the plane.
16
seven people, what good is that for him?
17
for the people on the ground?
18
It isn't anything that we
I mean, if he ejects and finds out he's killed

What good is it
It just makes no sense.
These planes, they've got other areas for them to
19
go.
20
ground tremendously bad.
21
of the runway and they shake the ground.
22
that they don't use after-burners but they do.
23
house just literally shakes.
24
25
They're not right for Whidbey Island.
They shake the
We're a half a mile from the end

They keep saying
And our
My grandmother is actually a full mile away and

it shakes her home.
I mean, it's just nothing is good.

(800) 686-1325
2074
Page 12
1
They do high run-up engine tests that they're heard four
counties away.
heard in Port Townsend.
Vancouver, Canada, out on Victoria Island.
isn't an appropriate place for this aircraft, for the
EA-18G, and just more of them makes no sense.
and it just is -- is a no -- it's a non-sense to bring them
here.
first place.
They're heard in the San Juans.
They're
They especially hear them in

I mean, this
It make --
They knew it was a nuisance to bring them here in the

They should have never made that decision.
It
10
should have gone to where they have millions and millions of
11
acres.
12
You know, it's endangering my life.
My
13
grandmother is 95.
14
she's been under it for 70 years, you know.
15
what else to say besides we have mules that are our last --
16
the last animals we'll ever have on our farm are our mules.
17
That's it.
18
absolutely no more animals.
19
stopped doing that because of the noise.
20
that's good for anybody.
21
It's endangering her life.
When they're gone they're gone.
I mean,
So I don't know
There will be
And we used to have cows.
We
This is nothing
I mean, we have neighbors that have horses that
22
run back and forth and we can't imagine why they bring
23
horses into an area like this.
24
around it.
25
They're stressed, you know.
I mean, that have never been
They run back and forth.

They're lathered.
I mean, it -- it isn't good for
(800) 686-1325
2074
Page 13
1
animals.
This is not right -- this is not the right place for the
EA-18G.
So I don't know what else I can put on there,
but --.
Thank you.
It isn't good for people.
19
20
(Th
PII d
21
f ll
22
MR
23
24
They just need to go.
dd
h
JOHN COOMBES
2930 S
'
L
h l

J h
A d
b
I h
ll
(800) 686-1325
2075
Page 14
1
jobs where we really aren't making much progress.
had total air superiority in Vietnam and got our ass kicked
out of there, and we had total air superiority in Iraq and
we eventually left there because it was too expensive.
after ten years and a trillion or two dollars ISIS cut
through the Iraqi army like a hot knife through butter.
all of that was wasted.
to be having a lot of success here.
more on the diplomatic and political options.
10
11
Like we
And
So
So the military option doesn't seem

Maybe we need to focus
That's the
end of my statement.
*

(800) 686-1325
2076
Page 5
10

Commenter.)
(b)(6)
11
My name is
(b)(6)
12
address is
13
Washington, 98277, and my e-mail is
14
(b)(6)
My
Oak Harbor,
(b)(6)
And my concern is that the people down in
15
Coupeville are self-serving.
16
patriotism.
17
them.
18
because I am ashamed of them.
19
motive.
It's evident.
They don't think about
And I am personally ashamed of
And I want the word ashamed in every paragraph
20
I don't understand their
I spent a lot of nights bouncing down there in my
21
career.
22
with the landing signal officer at the end of the runway.
23
And you can't do it except at night, so you -- in the
24
summertime you don't start until 10:00 at night.
25
pisses a lot of people off, I guess, but I never thought
And that is to save lives, to keep practice landing

So it
(800) 686-1325
2076
Page 6
1
about that then because it was so essential.
fighting at the time in Vietnam, so people like that, they
were behind the bushes.
they've got -- they've got some representation that they
think they've got some power, and they don't.
And we were
They weren't talking.
And now
One of the things that I understand, they had
3,000 people sign a petition to get rid of it.
people that signed didn't know what they were signing, is
what I was told.
Well, the
In investigating those signatures, most of
10
them thought they were bitching up the submarines sonars and
11
what -- how they were affecting the whales, nothing to do
12
with this bounce.
So it was a lie about how this petition
13
was for bouncing.
It wasn't at all.
14
of people that they had.
15
It was just the number
I have two sons that were military.
The one was
16
an A-6 pilot and did a lot of bouncing here, and he ended up
17
with MS.
18
software down at China Lake for the new F-35.
19
master's in computer science.
20
is why I'm pointing that out.
21
So he's out of the Navy, but he's the head of the

He has a
That -- that's connectivity,
And then I have a son also, the youngest, who is
22
a captain, and he's the chief of staff for Admiral Butts
23
that's in charge of all the carriers and all the airplanes
24
in the Navy.
25
think much of those people either.
And my son's down in San Diego.

He doesn't
(800) 686-1325
2076
Page 7
1
My dad was five-foot-seven and my brother was the
same size (indicating).
All our sons played college football.
raised us was if you lost the game you won the fight
afterwards.
We both played college football.

So the way our dad
The devil made me say it.
And there was some other things.
There's an
awful lot of good men here.
the most is these young men are being taken away from their
families, the Navy, to come out here to do this B.S.
And you know what bothers me
This
10
is silly that they're away from their families doing this.
11
We shouldn't have to be doing this.
12
patriotic enough to understand that.
That's why I'm
13
ashamed.
Anything else?
I'm ashamed.
I'm ashamed.
14
15
(Th
PII d
16
MS
N
19
BONNIE L FOREST
13 h C
I'
20
21
O k H
l
f ll
h
d
l
I
L F
98277
15
I'
22
23
17
18
We ought to all be
h
k d f
d
A d I
h

'
d
f
A d I k
h
h
f W
d
k
h
d
h
h
h
f
ll
(800) 686-1325
2077
Page 13
1
Th
EA 18G
'
d f
Th
h
d
h
commenter.)
(b)(6)
10
(b)(6)
Please
refer to my comments as dictated to this nice lady in

December of '13.
11
It was December; right?
And I want to let them know that I talked to

(b)(6)
12
their representative,
13
specific things like low-altitude flying and excessive
14
numbers being flown over, things in excess of over 30 times
15
a day.
16
unacceptable level.
17
about they can refer to my previous statement or to
18
These are still issues.
They're still in an
And anything else they want to know
(b)(6)
19
20
(Th
PII d
21
f ll
22
MR
23
24
about some very
dd
h
JOHN COOMBES
2930 S
'
L
h l

J h
A d
b
I h
ll
(800) 686-1325
2078
Page 18
1
ld l
ld
Bl
d fl
Commenter.)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Well, No. 1,
10
appreciate the opportunity to make a comment; appreciate
11
being able to talk to the pilots.
12
the height -- the height that planes are flying and the
13
proximity to my house and the noise that certainly develops.
14
I knew when I moved to that place where I moved to that
15
there were going to be planes.
16
some possibly recognition of constant noise in one area.
17
my mind that -- that can shift.
18
pilots could shift where they're flying on a fairly regular
19
basis.
20
seems like maybe they could switch, fly in a different area,
21
don't be in the same area for a great length of time.
22
don't know how to word that.
23
How's that?
My concern is sometimes
I would like to see there be

In
It seems like the Navy and
If you're in one area for five straight days it
Share the noise a little bit.
Share the noise.
24
I'm not sure I want him taking my picture.
25
So that's the main thing.

And then the late
(800) 686-1325
2078
Page 19
1
night flying seems a little crazy sometimes.
real -- sometimes don't understand that.
night -- you hardly hear them in the wintertime at night,
early, 6:00, 7:00 in the evening when it is dark, but you
hear them in the summertime at 10:00, 11:00, where it has
gotten dark.
doing a lot of practice in the dark because it's dark very
early.
seems like late at night it's, you know, maybe just the
Just don't seem to hear that much practice.
spring and summer.
11
during the winter more?
It
How about practicing during the -It seems like that could be done.
So anyway, I'm real interested in the height
13
restrictions and proximity restrictions.
14
Are they paid attention to?
15
They won't fly at
Seems like during the winter they could be
10
12
I'm not
Let's see.
Are there any?
The darkness -- and I did speak to
16
the gentleman over there, the pilot, and he talked to me a
17
little bit, and he said I can call and that they do get a
18
lot of calls.
19
I have noticed the last year and a half they seem
20
to be very close and banking the jets as opposed to just
21
kind of flying straight in.
22
like -- and then to hear that it might be an inexperienced
23
pilot doing that, I'm going, kind of scary.
24
was trying to reassure me, a brand-new dude up there and
25
he's banking?
I mean, they're banking.
It's
More scary.
He
I mean, it's -- and I've noticed that just

(800) 686-1325
2078
Page 20
1
the last year and a half.
like to see them work on some compromise, you know, the Navy
and the community find some compromise.
could be adjusted like I mentioned on the -- you know,
don't -- don't fly five straight nights in one area.
know, maybe shift them a couple nights, you know, and change
the times more so no one gets burdened often.
that's my -- that's the main thing I wanted to say.
So anyway, that's -- I would just

Maybe schedules
You
So anyway,
(800) 686-1325
2079
Page 8
1
h l
A d I
If
ld d
'
I'
ld d
I'
commenters,
(b)(6)
10
(b)(6)
.)
:
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
11
I just wanted to say that we -- we are a hundred
12
percent behind the Navy and the noise doesn't bother us at
13
all.
14
they were going to maybe put -- where they were going to put
15
all the aircraft and, you know, work on them.
16
of aircraft to come.
We have no complaints.
17
We were just curious as to how
That's a lot
That's all I have.
Do you want to add something?

(b)(6)
18
After spending my 15 years in
19
my service here at Whidbey Island my only concern was the
20
space to park and maneuver the airplanes, but I understand
21
they've got maintenance and building projects in order to do
22
that.
23
live about three miles south of the airport right on the
24
beach.
25
As far as the noise, we don't mind the noise.

We
(800) 686-1325
2080
Page 14
1
h d
ll
d
ll
ll
h d
l f
h
d
h
f
l
f
'
l
h
k d
A d
l k
ll
L k
d ll
h
11
h b
h
d
ISIS
'
d
Th
f
'
12
13
commenter.)
(b)(6)
14
15
16
17
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Is that what you want to know?
Oak
Harbor, 98277.
Well, what I would like to say is I have purse
18
(indicating).
19
raised a lot of chickens, and I collect chickens.
20
(b)(6)
Of course we used to have a big poultry farm,
Anyway, the Navy, in the last year, they fly so
21
low over my house that they scare the chickens and they take
22
off for the woods and the raccoons come and have their lunch
23
on them during the night.
24
they wouldn't -- I had pens that they went into every night,
25
but when they started flying at about 7:00 at night, why,

So I'm unhappy about that.
If
(800) 686-1325
2080
Page 15
1
the chickens would take off for the woods or the trees or
something like that.
I raise them just now more or less as a hobby and I usually
give the eggs to people.
around.
hens and one rooster.
ago I had 20, but -- and I -- I feel like it's the noise of
the airplanes that scares the chickens and they just take
off and hide somewhere.
10
And that makes me unhappy because I --
And I like having the chickens
And right now I've -- I'm down to only three laying

And that has -- oh, a couple months
I can't -- it makes me unhappy because I wish --
11
I wish they wouldn't fly so close to my house.
12
me.
13
course I can see the pilot.
14
lot of tall fir trees around our house.
15
going to fly into them some day.
16
17
18
19
20
It scares
They come down my driveway back of the house and of

They fly low.
Anything else I need to say?
And we have a
I'm afraid they're
This is my daughter
that prompted me.

UNIDENTIFIED DAUGHTER OF
(b)(6)
I guess
you told her about how close they fly.

(b)(6)
Yeah.
They -- they do.
21
They come -- well, in fact, they fly -- I have a deck on the
22
front of my house, and they've been flying so close there.
23
And I have two windows in my house, one is a thermal pane
24
and it's broken so I'm going to have to replace it.
25
like it's the airplanes that caused that.

I feel
And then in the
(800) 686-1325
2080
Page 16
1
basement is another one, but it's a single layer of glass.
It's not a thermal pane window.
because I'm -- I hope I can get that window replaced before
it falls in the living room.
But anyway, that scares me
(b)(6)
quarter-inch glass, a big picture window.

(b)(6)
Yeah, to the -- well,
this -- I think -- I know somebody else was saying that they
thought it might be causing the house to set a little bit or
10
something, and -- and there's two other thermal pane windows
11
that have lost their -- whatever they have in them that
12
makes them thermal pane, but I have this one that's going to
13
fall out in a couple pieces.
14
Okay?
15
Well, it's -- when they -- I don't know.
Is that enough?
Of
16
course I -- this is my own idea, that I have a couple of
17
times called in and complained about the planes because they
18
fly right around my house and so close.
19
people they're flying through my living room and that's what
20
it seems like when you're on the phone sometimes, you can
21
hardly talk.
22
23
24
25
I always tell
And anyway --
(b)(6)
You can't
talk on the phone.

(b)(6)
Yeah.
I would -- I
would hope that they would -- would move to a different

(800) 686-1325
2080
Page 17
1
location.
husband and I bought the farm and I still own the farm.
Okay.
I'm -- I moved there in 197 -- 1942 when my
I guess that's all I have to say.
I -- I would just say to you that we've -- you
know, you make a lot of friends who are the people that come
and go through your life.
I'm not anti them.
Anyway --.
(Th
PII d
10
MR
W
DAVID WANER
O k H
f NAS Wh db
14
h l
15
16
17
18
20
22
13
21
f ll
11
12
We've had a lot of friends and
d
l
ld '
b
d
I'
d N
h
fl d
d
h
ld b
ll
Th
Wh
98277
1661 S
d W
h
b
b
I l
l
h
h
d
ll b
ll
h
?
ll
23

(800) 686-1325
(b)(6)
2081
Halfmoom Bay, V0N 1Y2

EMF is well known to be harmful to humans, insects, and animals. If you don't believe
me, prove me wrong. Please do not do this "testing" of your warfare arsenol on the
citizens of the US and Canada.
(b)(6)
2082

A former army reservist and member of an extended family of soldiers, airmen and
marines, I support fully the proposed "Growler" exercises. As a retired judge, I know that
in all endeavors one must train hard to stay sharp. You have my blessing.
(b)(6)
2083
The EA from 2005 needs to be redone as an EIS. These follow-on EIS's are based on an
invalid EA. The Navy needs oversight from independent government agencies. The Navy
cannot police itself. The Navy has no regard for the people and environment it is
supposed to protect. The Navy should be looking at alternative locations for hosting the
Growlers. They do not belong on Whidbey Island and should not be training over any
populated area.
(b)(6)
2084
Anacortes, WA 98020
I do not feel that there is respect for the tranquility of the San Juan island chain and the
residents who live there.Although flights are not supposed to be over Decatur Island, they
are when there is cloud cover. The sound shakes the house and causes stress for our
dogs. (Sorry but true ;-) It seems to me that the base originated before the islands were
settled with as many folks as are there today. Quiet is part of the ambiance. Please note
that we have an ordinance banning jet skis because of the noise. The sound of the
Growlers is really unpleasant, and disruptive. I look forwards to learning about how the
Navy will mitigate noise. Thank you
(b)(6)
Decatur Island
Anacortes , WA 98221
Jets flying continuously over a county that has banned Personal Watercraft because they
are too noisy is a public relations disaster in the making. I would strongly recommend
adopting every possible noise abatement strategy you can. Otherwise, I am sure there
will be many, very public opportunities, to explain why you didn't.
2085
(b)(6)
2086

The Navys proposals to significantly expand the fleet of EA-18G aircraft and associated
facilities at NAS Whidbey concerns me from a number of perspectives. As a full time
resident for more than 5 years, the added and sometimes ear piercing noise and
increased exposure to vaporized and partially spent jet fuel in and around the community
raises concern over risks to human health in an otherwise pristine environment. As a
property owner for more than 20 years, I am concerned about further negative impact on
the already sluggish local real estate market as I see my neighbors struggling to sell their
homes under the continued threat of increased impact. From a taxpayer perspective, I
can appreciate the economy of scale and why the proposal to concentrate the Navy VAQ
squadrons would appeal to budget conscious congressional committees as long as they
ignore the inherent, heightened risks and greater impact from a terrorist attack on our
over concentrated defense assets. Im not advocating removal of aircraft, but doesnt
broader distribution of assets result in significantly less risk and a much stronger
defense?
(b)(6)
2087

I have a bad case of tinitis, caused by sudden loud sounds. I live in the middle of an old
orchard and am often up on a ladder in large trees. One day, for example, I was up in a
tree, pruning, when an intense Growler sound occurred. I was startled and feared for my
safety. Because I think it is irresponsible for the Navy to generate such sudden loud
unanticipated noise (and because in my case it is dangerous to be in that situation) I want
the EIS to include an analysis of supplemental noise measurements including Sound
Exposure Level and Peak Sound Level in addition to Ldn.
(b)(6)
2088

Because I have tinitis, my bodily reaction is to flee at sudden loud sounds. Therefore the
EIS needs to address the health effects of "Startle Reactions. Medical surveys should be
conducted on the affected populations in San Juan County. Mitigation should be put in
place for all engine testing, takeoffs and Field Carrier Landing Practices.
(b)(6)
2089

Because the outdoor work I do requires safety on tall ladders, and because the noise
startles me to a severe degree, the EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control.
Mitigation should include notifying citizens in advance of all growler activity at either
airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP), take-offs and engine run-offs.
(b)(6)
2090

I live on Mud Bay, on Lopez Island. This is the "south end" of the island. I am 14 miles
from the Whidbey airfield as the crow flies, yet the noise torments me, whether I am
inside or out. My home, and my body, vibrates with the rumbling thunderous noise. The
low flying jets are effectively buzzing my home. I want the EIS to include continuous
sound measurements in the southern portion of San Juan County over a two-month
period. I want the measurements to include C weighted sound measurements and
analysis in the EIS, as well as supplemental noise measurements including Sound
Exposure Level (LCE) and Peak Sound Level (LCPeak) in addition to Ldn.
(b)(6)
2091

I live on Mud Bay, in the south end of Lopez Island. The roar and the thunder of the
Growlers is excessive. In the EIS, I want sound measurement and analysis to include the
level of noise of the afterburners OR the Navy will commit in the mitigation section to not
use afterburners in training flights over North Puget Sound.
(b)(6)
2092

Navy Environmental Impact Statement for the EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at
Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island November 20, 2014 To Whom It May Concern: I
am a former San Juan County Commissioner for over 10 years, and among the signers
of the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan. I serve on the federally appointed San
Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee. This latter appointment is
mentioned only to provide my background, not the opinion of the National Monument
Advisory Committee. I have met with three current and former commanders of NAS
Whidbey. I was part of the recent delegation to the Commander of NAS Whidbey with two
San Juan County Council members and the city manager of Friday Harbor. I live on
Lopez Island in a home that I own, and have for almost 30 years. I base these comments
on my personal experience of having to plug my ears walking to my car at 9:20 p.m. at
night because the sound was only what I can describe as ear-splitting. I can say that the
wall of sound, or low-frequency rumble puts my body into a state of alarm, which
produces adrenalin in my body, which in turns exacerbates my blood sugar issues,
meaning that it seriously challenges my health. Finally, I dont see what an average of
sound has anything to do with the ear-splitting assault and constancy of the low
frequency vibrations that are simply intolerable, not matter for how long. When I have to
stop a conversation due to Growler overflights and when I have to plug my ears while
walking at the National Monument, there is no amount of averaging that makes those
tolerable moments. I ask the following: 1. Analysis Analysis in the 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments (EAs) was inadequate to support the findings. The Navy
must enhance the analysis in order to support proposed actions in the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). A. In the 2012 EA, Figure 3-4, Projected 2013 DNL Noise
Contours for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville indicates that San Juan County (SJC) is
outside the affected area. This does not reflect citizen experience. I request that
Computer simulations be verified by actual measurements. Please conduct continuous
sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period. B. Sound
measurements and analysis in the EAs used the A Weighting. This reflects human ear
response and according to the cited studies is related to annoyance. Growler engine
noise has a signature low frequency component that is ignored by A Weighting. There is
substantial evidence that low frequency sounds have deleterious health impacts beyond
annoyance. Growler sound measurement with C Weighting, which includes most of the
low frequency spectrum, is expected to be at least 30 dB higher than A Weighting. We
expect that C Weighting would also indicate that the Growler is louder than the Prowler. A
fundamental assumption in the EAs, that the Growler is quieter, is incorrect. Please
include C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. C. For decades
studies of airport noise have used the Day-Night Average (Ldn) metric for assessing
impacts. This may be appropriate for airports with typical operations 16 hours a day, 7
days a week. The noise experienced during Growler training flights is intermittent and
occurs in a region with very low background noise. The startle factor is a component of
the adverse health impacts that would be better represented by a short duration noise
measurement. I request that the EIS fully evaluate supplemental noise measurements
including Sound Exposure Level (LCE) and Peak Sound Level (LCPeak) in addition to
Ldn. Reference: Technical Support For Day/Night Average Sound Level (Dnl)
Replacement Metric Research.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/science_integrat
ed_modeling/noise_impacts/media/6-14-2011_FinalReport_MetricsMestre_etal_061411_
part1.pdf D. I understand that noise measurements and projections in the EAs assume
that afterburners are not in use. I believe that afterburners are used at times during flights
over SJC. I request that sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include
afterburners or the Navy shall commit in the mitigation section to not use afterburners in
training flights over North Puget Sound. 2. Health effects related to Startle Reaction San
Juan County residents are routinely exposed 118 124 dBC blasts of noise. This noise is
perceived subconsciously by the human body as a danger signal. The body reacts with
fight or flight response with resultant nervous, hormonal and vascular changes. The jet
noise experienced is not unlike the noise of an earthquake, a high wind level or a
chimney fire. Research shows that humans do not become accustomed to repeated
noise at this level. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects
of Noise (pub 1115), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, pp.
535- 545, 1984. Hall, FL., Birnie, SE, Taylor, SM, Palmer, JE: Direct Comparison of
Community Response to Road Traffic Noise and To Aircraft Noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
70:1690-1698, 1981. The EIS needs to address the health effects of Startle Reactions. I
request that medical surveys be conducted on the affected populations in San Juan
County. Mitigation must be put in place for all engine testing, takeoffs and Field Carrier
Landing Practices. 3. Health effects related to Loss of Control Residents of San Juan
County experience Growler jet noise at all times of the day and night. The noise ranges
from 65 124 dBC and is the result of over flights, engine testing and training operations.
NASWI does not publish a schedule of training operations for Ault Field. As a
consequence, residents never know if the blast of noise is a single 30 second event or
the beginning of 3 to 4 hours of noise from training. This severely impacts quality of life,
use of property and has definite health consequences. Surveys show that loss of control
over ones life is one of the most disturbing effects of low level military over flights and/or
sonic booms on rural Americans. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M:
Psychophysiological Reaction to Noise as Modified by Personal Control over Noise
Intensity. Biol Psychol, 6:51-59, 1978. Singer JE, Acri JB, Schaeffer MH: Cognitive
Changes from Noise Exposure. In Bergland B, Lindvall T (eds): Noise as a Public Health
Problem. New Advances in Noise Research (volume I of proceedings of the 5th
international congress on noise as a public health problem, held in Stockholm, Aug.
21-25, 1988), Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, pp 401-410, 1990.
Bargen R: Airspace Blues, Airspace, Gabbs, Nev, p 424, 1989. I request that the EIS
address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation must include notifying citizens in advance
of all Growler activity at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP),
takeoffs and engine run-ups. 4. Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children On Lopez Island
the Growlers routinely fly over our school in the middle of the island and over Lopez
Village where our Preschool and Childrens Center is located. Research shows that
children can be very distressed over military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may
include: terror, panic, screaming, freezing in place, palpitations, shaking, dizziness, bed
wetting, sleep disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure.
References: Goldman B: Sheshatshit, Labrador A Town without Hope. Can Med Assoc J,
141:602-605,1989.1162 (b)(6) Page 13 of 23. Bartels K: Medizinische/psychosomatische
Auswirkung von lieffluglarm. In Kinder und Tiefflug. Dokumentation des Expertenforums
zu den Auswirkungen des Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 18-22, 1989.
2092
Preuss S: Militarischer Jiefflug Und Seine Psychischen Auswirkun gen Auf Kinder. In
Kinder und Tiefflug. Dokumentation des Expertenfonims zu den Auswirkungen des
Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 3-8, 1989. I specifically request that the EIS
address the issue of loud Growler noise on children. Mitigation must include shifting flight
patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. 5. Sleep Disturbance San
Juan County residents regularly experience Growler jet noise between the hours of 8 pm
and 12 midnight. During the summer the noise often continues to 1 am. The indoor
threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. San Juan County residents noise journals show
that indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field range from 57 80 dBA. If the low
frequency noise is measured the sound levels range from 77 100 dBC. Windows rattle,
bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Using the Ldn averaging method for
noise does not take into account that our bodies do not average. Noise annoyance during
the night increases noise annoyance for the following 24 hours. Noise disruptions and
sleep disturbance can lead to health disorders and interfere with convalescence from
illness. Low frequency sound, such as the Growler emits, is significantly disturbing even
at low sound pressure levels. References: LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking
Performance Decrements Following Minimal Sleep Description: The Effects of
Habituation during Sleep, Physiological Psychology, 3:147-174, 1975. Kryter, Ran D.,
Analysis of Laboratory and Field Data on Awakening from Noise, 1988. Lukas, J.,
Measures of Noise Level: Their Relative Accuracy In Predicting Objective and Subjective
Responses to Noise During Sleep. EPA-600/1-77-0 10, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Feb.
1977. Griefahn, Barbara. Research on Nose-Disturbed Sleep since 1973. In Proceedings
of the Third International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. ASHA Report
No. 10, April 1980. Gniefahn, B Muzet, A: Noise Induced Sleep Disturbances and Their
Effects on Health. Institut Feur Arbeits und Sozialmedizin, Universitaet Mainz, West
Germany and Centre dEtudes Bioclimatiques due CNRS, France. I request that the EIS
address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the study area must be
undertaken to document the extent of this problem. An action alternative that removes
FCLP and Approach practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours must be
developed and studied. 6. Alternatives The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States:
The alternatives include variations of the following factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to
be purchased 2. Number of aircraft assigned per squadron 3. Number of land-based
squadrons. 4. The distribution of aircraft operations at NAS Whidbey Island between Ault
Field and OLF Coupeville There are no alternatives that base the Growlers at a location
other than NAS Whidbey Island. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations requires that Agencies shall (a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate
all reasonable alternatives . We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just
because they are higher in cost or not as efficient. I request that the EIS fully evaluate
one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey
Island. 6. Mitigation I want the Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce the
noise impacts of Growler training flights on the citizens of San Juan County. In preparing
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Council on Environmental Quality
regulation 1502, section 14 on Proposed Alternatives states, In this section agencies
shall: (f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed
action or alternatives. I believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments
incorrectly determined that there was no adverse noise impact and therefore it was
inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. At a minimum the following mitigation
measures must be fully considered. All selected mitigation measures must be included in
2092
the Record of Decision along with timelines for completion. A. Flight paths for EA-18G
Growler training from NAS Whibey Island shall minimize routes over San Juan County to
the greatest extent possible. B. Training flights over San Juan County shall be above
3,000 feet elevation. C. Afterburners shall not be used on training flights over North Puget
Sound. D. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House shall be used for noise
suppression during all Growler engine run-ups and testing. E. Test, acquire and deploy
noise reduction measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. F.
Notify citizens in advance of all Growler activity at either airfield including Field Carrier
Landing Practice (FCLP) takeoffs and engine run-ups. 7. Economic Impacts The San
Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of peace.... We
support a pattern of economic growth which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet,
agricultural, marine and isolated nature of the islands." The quiet and pristine nature of
the islands with its marine protected areas, National Monuments and National Historical
Parks attracts organic agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists, hikers, kayakers, sailors,
summer residents and retirees. Some visitors who have experienced the jet noise have
stated that they will not return. Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone
increasing the number of jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property values. I
request that the EIS address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit,
Jefferson and Island Counties. 8. Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments (EAs) are deficient in the
following areas as noted in numerous comments. Analysis Human health
consequences Economic consequences Alternatives Mitigation This EIS must
conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on or tier off of the Records of
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Decision for the 2005 and 2012 EAs. Sincerely,
Lopez
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Island, WA 98261
Former County Commissioner, San Juan County, WA
2092
(b)(6)
2093

Growlers is excessive. I believe that pilots of the Growlers deviate from official flight
patterns, thus adding to the frequency of low-flying jets flying directly over my home,
which I believe is quite likely since there seems no reason for them to be doing so. In
other words, I want the EIS to address the stringency of the flight patterns to which the
pilots must adhere.
(b)(6)
2094

Growlers is excessive. The noise of the Growlers startles and distracts me. I have work
that requires concentration. Lopez Island is a relatively quiet place, thus the noise of the
Growlers represents a startling shock and disrupts my attention. I want the EIS to
address the Startle Reaction due to the noise, and discuss mitigation of this noise over
San Juan County.
(b)(6)
2095

Growlers is excessive. Because of my work, which requires concentration, I want the EIS
to discuss the requirement for the Navy to publish its Growler activity schedule. I need
control over my schedule, and I do not have it when the Growler noise thunders so
excessively in unexpected blasts.
(b)(6)
2096

I am a 39 year resident of Lopez Island. For about 20 years I lived on the southeast
corner of the island and endured low flyovers of Prowlers, sometimes every five minutes
for hours at a time. Currently I live farther north on the island in Lopez Village. However, I
work full-time on the southeast corner of Lopez and am now experiencing the louder
noise of the Growler. I am impacted everyday at work, but also am hearing them more
and more farther north on the island in Lopez village. I urge that the EIS conduct
continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of San Juan county over a one
month period, include C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS, and it
should fully evaluate supplemental noise measurements including Sound Exsposure
Level (LCE) and Peak Sound Level (LCPeak) in addition to Ldn. Sound measurement
and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or the Navy shall commit in the
mitigation section to not use afterburners in training flights over North Puget Sound. I
have a bad case of high blood pressure and I know that being exposed to the 118-124
dBC blasts of jet noise is not helping my condition. I find that continued jet noise causes
me to want to lash out or be irritable with my co-workers. I want the EIS to address the
issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include notifying San Juan County citizens in
advance of all Growler activity at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing
Practice(FCLP), takeoffs and engine run-ups. I think the EIS should fully evaluate one or
more alternatives for Growler base locations other than NAS Whidbey Island. The region
has become too populated for this type of flight training. During the interim, the training
flights over San Juan County should be above 3,000 ft. and there should be noise
reduction measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers.
(b)(6)
2097

Growlers is excessive, including evening and late night times. It is quiet in my
neighborhood and the effect of the windows rattling and the floor vibrating is not an
environment for sleep. The NOISE and THUNDER often go until MIDNIGHT, keeping me
from sleep. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. In the section for mitigation, there
should be a requirement to prohibit FCLP and Approach practice from Ault field after
5pm, and before 9am.
(b)(6)
2098

The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States: The alternatives include variations of
the following factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to be purchased 2. Number of aircraft
assigned per squadron 3. Number of land-based squadrons. 4. The distribution of aircraft
operations at NAS Whidbey Island between Ault Field and OLF Coupeville There are no
alternatives that base the Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Section
1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires that Agencies shall
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives . I believe
that alternatives should not be dismissed just because they are higher in cost or not as
efficient. I want the EIS toall fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers
at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2099

I live on the south end of Lopez Island, where the jet engine ROAR and RUMBLE and
VIBRATION is excessive. I want the Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce
the noise impacts of Growler training flights on the citizens of San Juan County. In
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Council on Environmental
proposed action or alternatives. We believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments incorrectly determined that there was no adverse noise impact and
therefore it was inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. At a minimum the following
mitigation measures must be fully considered. All selected MITIGATION measures shall
be included in the Record of Decision along with timelines for completion. A. Flight paths
for EA-18G Growler training from NAS Whibey Island shall minimize routes over San
Juan County to the greatest extent possible. B. Training flights over San Juan County
shall be above 3,000 feet elevation. C. Afterburners shall not be used on training flights
over North Puget Sound. D. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House shall be used
for noise suppression during all Growler engine run-ups and testing. E. Test, acquire and
deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the
Growlers. F. Notify citizens in advance of all Growler activity at either airfield including
Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) takeoffs and engine run-ups. The Navy claims to
be a "good neighbor". This is their opportunity to demonstrate the authenticity of that
statement through noise mitigation.
(b)(6)
2100

I live on the south end of Lopez Island. At the time I purchased my property, the jet noise
was present, but was not excessive and not frequent. The NOISE has dramatically
escalated, while the Navy states that the noise has not increased. Nonetheless the noise
is OBVIOUS. I believe this diminishes the opportunity I have to realize the investment I
have made in my home. Frankly, who would buy my home if they hear that noise and feel
the vibration. My home is not a shack. It is well built and strong. Yet the noise and
vibration penetrates the home. In addition, there is little opportunity to be outside in the
yard without having to wear ear protection. This is not a good way to live. I want the EIS
to examine the ECONOMIC EFFECT of Growler noise, and to discuss mitigation of the
noise, throughout San Juan County.
(b)(6)
2101

I am a long time resident of Lopez Island, WA. In 2012 I purchased a home on the south
east part of the island. I am concerned about the economic impact of my investment. As
the noise of the Growler continues, I am concerned about the resale value of my home
and having to disclose the constant jet noise if I chose to sell my property. Will I be able
to sell my property when I decide to put it on the market? Also I believe the 2005 & 2012
EAs are deficient in the following areas: analysis,human health consequences, economic
consequences, alternatives and mitigation. This current EIS should conduct all analysis
from the beginning and should not rely on or tier off of the Records of Decision for the
2005 and 2012 EAs.
2106
2106
2106
2114
2115
2115
2115
(b)(6)
2116
I live in Bellingham, WA and I am very concerned with US Navy operations near my
home and in my greater environment. There are several issues that I would like to see
addressed: 1. Noise pollution from Navy warfare aircraft; that existing now, that which is
projected to occur with expansion of the fleet and with increases in take offs and
landings, that which will result from replacement of EA-6s (Predators) with EA-18s
(Growlers), and with proposed changes in flight patterns and routes. 2. Impacts
(considering noise, fossil fuel emissions, physical intrusions, visual intrusions, and
exposure to electromagnetic waves) on non-human life and health, including resident
birds, migrating birds, land mammals, and sea mammals. 3. Impacts on human health,
including and addressing all of the issues stated above. 4. Impacts to aesthetics and
wilderness, considering that much of the existing and proposed activity occurs in
wilderness and other protected areas. I am frequent hiker and backpacker all over WA
State, especially within the North Cascade and Olympic mountains. It is already noisy in
these places from air traffic; there are not many places in the lower 48 where a person
can get away from this noise of civilization. I get that. But consider that these are national
parks, and they are by definition supposed to protect the pursuit of wilderness activities
and wildness for the sake of being wild, a place to listen to nature not to man-made
machines. Even in areas of national forest with lesser protection, the law and the mission
are to protect wildlife habitat and wilderness recreation. How can this mission be
maintained and sustained with war planes training overhead, and additionally, with these
war planes using ground stations for electronic warfare training? Western WA is a heavily
populated area. But we are also very lucky to have within western WA, and throughout
the state, wilderness areas and national parks that possess inestimable value to humans,
animals, clean water, and clean air. In my opinion it is not possible to maintain a good
quality of life, human or animal, if war planes are to increase in numbers, noise, and
activity. The navy has historically not been a good environmental steward in this area.
They have perpetrated a huge amount of damage in WA in the form of underwater
disturbances to marine mammals. That is another story, but it segues into this one. We
dont need now to add to the disturbance and destruction. The world is not a playground
(b)(6)
for war machines. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
2117
For decades the DoD's (not just Navy's) only air-based EA jamming capability was
provided by 123 EA-6B Prowlers. For as many decades the EA-6B was classified as a
"unique, high-demand low-volume (HDLV) national asset." Now the EA-18G is replacing
the EA-6B as the high-demand low-volume national asset that provides electronic attack
for the Navy, Marines, and Air Force. Adding additional aircraft to Fleet Squadrons
expeditionary squadrons and the RAG won't change the "high demand" requirement for
the aircraft and crews, but will finally start addressing the longstanding "low volume"
problem that has been systemic in the EA community for too long. This EIS should
address not only the usual aircraft operations, noise, and economic impact issues but
also identify the social, economic, and operational benefits to the Navy and Navy families
of having additional airframes and crews to reduce or eliminate the "low volume" side of
the HDLV equation (fewer or shorter deployments (?), etc).
(b)(6)
2118

I oppose the use of the Olympic National Forest for electronic warfare training, because
this use is completely contrary to the purpose for which National Forests were
established and is not included as an allowable activity under the National Forest
management planning process. As you undoubtedly know, National Forests were first
established by the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 and the processes for planning allowed
activities using the National Forests were set forth in the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and in the National Forest Management Act
of 1976. It is clear from this legislation and others that the mission of the Forest Service is
to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the Nations forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations." Its motto is "Caring for the land and
serving people." As the lead federal agency in natural resource conservation, the US
Forest Service is to provide leadership in the protection, management and use of the
nations forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems. The agency's ecosystem approach
to management must integrate ecological, economic and social factors to maintain and
enhance the quality of the environment to meet current and future needs. Through
implementation of land and resource management plans, the agency is to ensure
sustainable ecosystems by restoring and maintaining species diversity and ecological
productivity that helps provide recreation, water, timber, minerals, fish, wildlife, wilderness
and aesthetic values for current and future generations of people. The proposed use of
the Olympic National Forest for electronic warfare training and the repeated flyovers by
military aircraft clearly impacts and greatly detracts from the ecological, wilderness and
aesthetic values the National Forest was established to preserve. Indeed, if electronic
warfare training is not specifically identified as an allowable activity in plans established
by the US Forest Service, then by this fact alone it is mandatory that the US Forest
Service deny the proposal to conduct such training. At a time when there is increased
demand for recreational use, increased demand for forest products and increased stress
on ecosystems from climate change, any additional activity that adds noise, pollution or
stress must be kept out of the National Forest. I hope that the Forest Service will uphold
the mission for which it was established and deny permission for use of any National
Forest land to be used for electronic warfare training. U.S. defense contractors, on the
other hand, obviously have no such mandate. Their mission, under the guise of
protecting U.S. citizens, is clearly to sell as many weapons as possible, to anyone who
will buy them; and their partners in the military apparently support that insane approach
to life on earth. Sacrificing all in the name of national defense is the worst kind of
ignorance. Albert Einstein called it brilliance in the service of insanity. Please do not go
forward with your plan for electronic warfare training in the Olympic National Forest, or
(b)(6)
any other public lands.
Port Townsend, WA
98368-7123
(b)(6)
2119

High biological diversity is essential to the sustainability of ecosystems. Across the planet
these systems upon which we rely are collapsing. The projected Growler Airfield
Operations which include electromagnetic radiation systems on the ground will inevitably
affect plants and animals already stressed by climate disruption, loss of habitat and
pollution. In other words, if this project flies, we will all lose much more than sleep.
(b)(6)
2120
Anacortes, WA 98221
The noise produced by the Growlers over residential areas around Anacortes are highly
disruptive to people, birds, and other wildlife. Particularly when afterburners are deployed
on the aircraft, the sounds produced make even basic conversation inside your home
difficult. It would be appreciated if practice maneuvers were conducted only out at sea,
over open water, where there are no residential communities to be disturbed and
disruption to wildlife would be minimized.
(b)(6)
2121
Coupeville , WA 98239
Please use the jets as they use the Coupeville OLF and Ault Field with their afterburner
as part of the sound studies.
(b)(6)
2122

No new growlers or prowlers. The noise impact of existing prowlers already is frightening
and disruptive. The negative impact on tourism and wildlife in the national Park is
(b)(6)
unacceptable. Thank you for listenig....
(b)(6)
2123

I am the wife of a very proud Viet Nam veteran who is not against the military in any way,
shape or form . . .but I am very concerned about the increase in the noise level from the
additional Growler jets that will be deployed from the Whidbey Naval Base. I also just
learned that this aircraft will possibly be dumping excess fuel in order to land their aircraft
safely? This was done in an area in California where I grew up and now there is a higher
rate of breast cancer in that area, that is beyond the normal rate, which they think might
be attributed from this practice. This has affected my family directly, as both my mother
and sister have had breast cancer surgery. I am also very concerned that the additional
noise from the Growlers will result in a devaluation of our property values. We already
have a stinky Mill smell problem in our area that devaluates our property values and this
increase in noise will just add to the fact that this area is no longer a desirable place to
live. Another main concern is the effects of the excess noise in our area from these jets
on our personal health. I know this type of training is essential for our protection and the
protection of our military but can this practice please be located to a less populated area?
Thank you for letting us comment on this project.
Port Townsend Resident

It would be best for everyone involved in the region if night-time operations involving a lot
of noise were reduced. We support the Navy and see the need for good practice facilities.
But once people start not being able to sleep, it's hard to continue being reasonable.
2124
(b)(6)
2125
Stanwood, WA 98292
I live near Stanwood full time and in near Anacortes part-time. When the Growlers fly
over my Stanwood home my wife and I cannot even hear one another speak. Sometimes
the flights come over every few minutes, making it intolerable to be outside. In Anacortes
I have had to literally cover my ears because of the intensity of the noise actually hurts
my ears. I wonder if it is even "legal" to create that level of noise. I have lived in the area
for over 35 years, and have been supportive of NAS Whidbey, but I cannot accept the
prospect of an increase in the number of Growlers and the increased number of training
flights they represent. I know the community beyond Whidbey Island has been very
supportive of NAS Whidbey, but I sense that support eroding due to the ever more
intolerable noise levels. I sincerely hope the noise pollution created by the "sound of
freedom" does not get any more disruptive to the lives of regular citizens. If an increase
in the size of the Growler "fleet" is approved, I fear there could be an outcry to close NAS
Whidbey, and that would not be good for any of us.
(b)(6)
2126
Freeland, WA 98249
(b)(6)
2127
Courtenay BC Canada, V9N 9S6

I live on Vancouver Island and I object strongly on health and safety reasons.
Electromagnetic frequency radiation knows no political boundaries. Both Victoria and
Vancouver are well within range of your proposed activities. This is unacceptable. EMF
radiation is considered a Class 2B carcinogen by World Health organization to state that
it is safe is false. Safety Code 6 is an inadequate measure of non ionizing radiation. Why
else do you have your military personnel sitting in think metal trailers during operations?
You know full well the potential damage to biological tissue including humans, animals. I
will be copying this comment to my government and again I request that you stop this
exceeding dangerous operation. Respectfully,
(b)(6)
2128

I live on Mud Bay on Lopez Island, and endure prolonged thunderous jet engine
vibrations frequently (probably due to run-ups and take-offs), as well as noise and roar
from being buzzed by low-flying Growlers overhead and in the near vicinity. I would like to
know through this EIS about the ways that such noise and vibration can be mitigated or
eliminated, particularly the low, prolonged rumbling roar. I want to know the decibel levels
on the C weighted scale, measured 24 hours per day for one month, not averaged.
(b)(6)
2129

I live on Mud Bay on Lopez Island, and endure prolonged thunderous jet engine
vibrations frequently (probably due to run-ups and take-offs), as well as noise and roar
from being buzzed by low-flying Growlers overhead and in the near vicinity. I would like to
know what other locations in the US exist, or could exist, where the Growlers could be
located. I want to know why other locations could not be used.
(b)(6)
2130
I discovered your Environmental Impact Statement for the EA-18G Growler Airfield
Operations page and noticed you could have a lot more hits. I have found that the key to
running a website is making sure the visitors you are getting are interested in your niche.
There is a company that you can get visitors from and they let you try their service for
free. I managed to get over 300 targeted visitors to day to my site. Visit them here:
http://bikin.link/15
(b)(6)
2131
Loveland, CO 80537
(b)(6)
I am a landowner on San Juan Island's west side (

off Yacht Haven). I
am only a summer resident (prefer snow over winter rain). I understand the need for flight
training to maintain readiness. I support increased operations within reason (please keep
it to mainly daytime ops & geographically diverse, i.e., ops spread out over many
vectors). A little jet noise is a small price to pay for maintaining a world class military.
(b)(6)
2132

As a life long member of this community I totally support the Navy's mission here at NAS
Whidbey. The Navy has always been a good neighbor and always provided good jobs for
this community.Without a strong military the people complaining would not enjoy the
freedoms they do. Keep em flying.
(b)(6)
2133
Freeland, WA 98249
Thank you for the complete and well developed project proposal website and for the
opportunity to provide EIS comment. As a life-long resident of the Pacific Northwest, it
gives me great pleasure to fully support continued operations of all existing Naval air ops
on Whidbey Island including the addition of as many aircraft as our Nation can afford. At
a time when our federal government appears to have lost focus on the role of the
government it is important that we the people stand up for and support our DoD leaders
in their efforts to achieve the strongest national defense possible. The EA-18G Growler
Airfield Operations proposals appear to do exactly that and we support them fully. The
question of noise is a relative thing. We live in Freeland about 15 miles south of the Navy
OLF and do not find noise from OLF ops objectionable. We are able to hear Navy aircraft
OLF ops just as we hear brand new Boeing aircraft flying away from the Everett factory;
just as we hear Boeing freighters flying off to distant lands to return with parts for 787
aircraft; just as we hear commercial aircraft bringing passengers to this great part of the
Nation for business or pleasure; just as we hear floatplanes flying happy travelers directly
over our house to the San Juan islands; just as we hear the Blue Angels whenever we
can; just as we hear other Navy aircraft in transit between Whidbey and JBLM; just as we
hear unknown aircraft on unknown ops at two in the morningjust as we hear Freeland
City 4th of July fireworks celebration the day before the 4th; just as we hear heavy trucks
driving up the road. Noise is part of our civilization and time marches onit is no longer
dead quiet on Walden Pond and it is no longer dead quiet on Whidbey Island and we like
that! Noise is part of America and a sure sign that freedom is alive and welleconomic
projects make noise, construction projects make noise, living life makes noise and
defending freedom makes noiseits all part of American progress and protecting
America is one thing our federal government must do. Thanks again for the opportunity to
comment and for(b)(6)
registering our support of continued and expanded Naval air ops on
Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2134
, WA
Comment: Please investigate the failure of specific Navy personnel who, since 1993,
were assigned to follow the DOD Instruction 4165.57, May 2, 2011 in the AICUZ policy
regarding land use at the OLF and failed to do so. The Navy should develop plans and
implement them to solve the problem that has been created by insufficient effort to
prevent the current practice of Navy jets flying 250 to 400 feet over neighborhoods on
their approach to the OLF in Coupeville. Should the Navy fly over land that should have
no residential homes at all, where no buyers has received legally required noise
disclosure for 20 years, partially because the Navy Liaison supported and recommended
the language of the misleading disclosure used instead in an August, 2002 Island County
Commissions Meeting Minutes and the Navy failed to follow DOD instructions? The Navy
should fully investigate the role played by naval personnel in not following AICUZ
procedures to prevent a situation where neighborhoods are used as a runway around the
outlying filed. According to DOD Instruction 4165.57, May 2, 2011: AICUZ development
policy is to promote health, safety and welfare of persons in the vicinity of air operations
by minimizing aircraft noise and safety impacts. And 4.c states the intention is to: Limit
acquisition of real property interests to the minimum necessary to ensure the operational
integrity of the air installation. In the documentation following that DOD signature page,
the Navy is to encourage local land use and development consistent with the AICUZ
(1.a): The DoD Components shall ensure that their air installations engage State and
local governments and communities to foster compatible land use And this (1.d): The
DoD Components shall ensure that each of their air installations: (1) Address land use
compatibility on and in the vicinity of the air installation where: (a) Aircraft operations may
affect the public health, safety, or welfare. And according to 8.a.2 (also reflected in 1.b)
the Navy should consider acquisition of lands when local and state governments do not
provide adequate protection: The acquisition of restrictive use easements or interests in
land outside the Clear Zone, such as APZs and noise zones, should only be pursued
when State and local governments are unwilling or unable to enact land use controls to
achieve land use compatibility in accordance with AICUZ guidelines andwhere
long-term land use controls are considered to be ineffective and the DoD Component
determines all possibilities of achieving compatible use zoning, or similar protection, have
been exhausted. Citizens will pursue a FOIA request for the following documents and the
Navy should review them as well: 1) All records related to how the Navy worked with
local and state entities to ensure land use development compatible with FCLPs at the
OLF. 2) All records related to Navy consideration under 8.a.2 of acquisition of
OLF-affected properties (given that local and state land development restrictions and
practices have not followed the guidelines set forth in Tables 1 and 2 of the referenced
Instructions and that public health, safety and welfare are affected). 3) Investigate why
the Navy Liaison, Rich Melass, supported and recommended the Noise Disclosure
language that was deceptive, failing to warn citizens, as noted in the Minutes of the
August 12, 2002 Island County Commissioners Meeting.
(b)(6)
2135
,
Comment: The question is, Should the Navy fly as low as 250 feet producing outrageous
noise when homeowners there has been given no jet noise disclosure at all over the last
year, receiving instead a noise disclosure which was illegal, and the wording of which
was recommend and supported by the Navy? The falling summarizes the history of the
deception and the harm done when people were not given the opportunity to live
somewhere else. The following information was taken from the website, Citizens
Harmed by Disclosure Deception. There may be graphics and numerous links to
documentation that will not show up in this format that may be found at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/ History of the Disclosure Deception There are
two Island County Noise Disclosure Statements required by law since 1992 that realtors
and sellers must present, and buyers and renters/lessees of properties in jet noise zones
must sign. One is written for builders and the other for buyers and renters/lessees. In the
county ordinance, the stated intent of both disclosure statements is to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare by providing for the full disclosure of the noise. A
signature protects realtors and sellers from being sued for non-disclosure. Families
actually live 250 feet directly under Growler jets cycling over every minute or so, hour
after hour. Its like living on an aircraft carrier. People are subjected to noise that
completely disrupts lives in ways that would be unimaginable for anyone who hasnt lived
under a flight path. Full disclosure helps protect the Navy from predictable complaints
and action against the noise which affects base operation. The 1992 Island County Noise
Disclosure was written, in part, because Naval Air Station Whidbey Island (NASWI) was
being considered for closure. It would follow, then, that buyers and renters in the noise
zones were, through disclosure, given the information they needed to be able to decide
whether or not to buy or rent there. It would seem their signature on the disclosure form
shows they were told, and have no justification for complaints, lawsuits, or other actions.
But is that assumption true? Ironically, the opposite has been true. Instead of disclosing
the legally required military jet noise information, until January of this year, realtors and
escrow agents used a form that did not disclose the presence of a military air base or jet
noise at all. Discovery of the Disclosure Deception A signature on a disclosure form
dated between 1993 until December, 2013 likely does not show proof of disclosure,
because no jet noise information was given. Many buyers and renters were, in effect,
trapped in a home under the jet path because they were not told about the noise. In
November 2013, the County discovered the deception, and the community was informed
of the legal requirements in a commissioners meeting and in several newspaper articles.
Surprisingly, leaders in the Whidbey Island real estate community made public
statements at a commissioners meeting, defending their practice of non-disclosure, even
after being told by the Planning Director that it fell far short of the law. They have
commented online, as well. What is the Loss, and Who Should Pay? People who bought
over the past 21 years are discovering that listing realtors prevented them from receiving
noise information required by law when they bought and that those same realtors will now
provide alarming noise information when they sell. They will realize that the entire market
was propped up by lack of noise information for two decades and the entire market will
probably go down and they may get thousands of dollars less. Fortunately, they will have
the opportunity to decide whether they should pay the loss, or join a class action law suit
to determine what the loss is likely to be and compel the listing realtor companies and/or
NWMLS (Northwest Multiple Listing Service) attorneys to pay. Additional Results of this
Deception Buyers and renters have felt guilty because their decision had such a horrible
outcome: They thought they must have been warned by the form they signed because it
had the words noise disclosure at the top; They took responsibility for their confusion,
not realizing the form they didnt understand wasnt written for them and said nothing
about jet noise; They were forced to either try to mentally adjust their attitudes toward
the noise or go crazy as the planes roared overhead or pay thousands of dollars and
months in time to move; and Many became distressed, worn down, and depressed and
developed a host of physical and psychological ailments. One of the worst results of the
deception has been that important NASWI decisions about the escalation of noise and
the numbers of jets flying have been made, in part, because leaders have assumed that
jet noise was disclosed to people living in the noise zones. Here are a few examples The
Navy had a copy of the 1992 disclosure, sent it out when asked about disclosure, and
thought it was being used routinely by realtors. The new County Commissioners
assumed the law was being followed and denied it when they were told that realtors were
using the wrong form. Elected representatives at the state and national level have been
unaware that buyers were deceived instead of informed. They may have been willing to
sacrifice the health and quality of life of citizens to military and economic interests, in part,
because they were told. The latest escalation of the numbers of jets has been
announced. In response, an Open Letter to the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees has been sent to all members, and a Stop 36 More Growlers campaign has
been initiated. The general belief has been that full disclosure was occurring and buyers
and lessees should have known what theyd be getting, and if not, the fault was theirs. So
everyone discounted their complaints and made decisions that affected them based on
the assumption that they were told. Another result of this deception is that they were
told has become the weapon of choice by OLF supporters, giving some of them
confidence to bully their neighbors, despite their suffering. Others have harassed them on
the Internet, used derogatory signage on their cars, discriminated against them in social
situations, boycotted their Coupeville businesses, and more. This weapon was used
when Pro OLF petition circulators gathered signatures from thousands of people,
spreading the lie like a virus (petition 1) (petition 2). The petitions were then presented to
the Navy by community leaders who were among the few people who did know there has
been no jet noise disclosure, including Commissioner Jill Johnson, Oak Harbor Chamber
President Jason McFadyen who is a realtor, and Oak Harbor Mayor Scott Dudley.
Persecution is defined as the infliction of harm or suffering by the government, or
persons the government is unwilling or unable to control, to overcome a characteristic of
the victim. Persecution of the victim, noise zone complainers, is rampant on Whidbey
Island. This has contributed to an uniquely high noise annoyance level that has severely
elevated the health and psychological harm beyond that inflicted by the noise volume
levels, alone. Why didnt anyone know? The noise disclosure was one of the best kept
secrets in Island County. No one except the realtors and escrow agents who presented it
to buyers and lessees seemed to know what the disclosure said. Many people who
signed it at their escrow meeting still dont know. The few buyers who may have
recognized the deception in the form after they bought were unlikely to point it out. They
would have to use the same disclosure when they sold, or risk losing money and possibly
be unable to sell at all. Good people would be tempted to just pass on the problem for
another 20 years. What information is required in the legal disclosure? The 1992 Island
County Noise Disclosure law for buyers/lessees requires the following information: 100+
2135
decibel noise levels (terribly out of date now with recent measurement four times louder),
the description of tactical military jet aircraft facilities, noise which may extend outside
the contours of the map, an attached map of the OLF and AULT, routine flights,
occurring day and night, and phone numbers to call to get more specific information
through the Navy and the County. The Realtor Form, used for probably 20 years and
originally written for builders, is a four-line statement: The description of tactical military
jet aircraft facilities from the 1992 disclosure was replaced with significant airport noise
and all other information for buyers/renters was omitted. It does include a reference to
the Noise Level Reduction Ordinance (found in the Building Code) to determine possible
building restrictions, if any. This section is particularly confusing because it is not
intended for buyers or renters who are not building. It is not provided, and no help for
finding it is given. Compare them both to see the differences and ask yourself, Why
would so much information be omitted? Who determines the kind of disclosure realtors
use? The Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) attorneys mandated the use of the
very same statement from the builders section of the county ordinance in their form for
buyers. They copyrighted the form, despite the fact that the 1992 law was still on the
books. It is hard to imagine the reasoning of either the realtor attorneys or the individual
realtors using it, to omit the 1992 disclosure information. At some point in real estate
offices island wide, one pile of forms was replaced with another and no realtors spoke out
for people who would likely be trapped under jet noise as a result. Professional ethics
and sympathy for buyers was not a factor. Concern for liability was not a factor, either.
Most realtors carry insurance for non-disclosure. Do realtors want to change it? Initially,
with the exception of a few, realtors did not want to change it. With angry defensiveness,
many have said that every realtor fully discloses. Unfortunately, countless lawsuits
against realtors demonstrate that is not true. They have said that part of their customer
base does not want it changed. They have said they rely on their attorneys to provide
them with all of their disclosure forms. They now say, since the public has been informed
of the truth, something very different. Jason Joiner, government affairs director for the
Whidbey Island Association of Realtors, said, when interviewed for the Whidbey New
Times article on disclosure: Its the opinion of our association that we want to disclose as
much as we possibly can, and that he believes local Realtors would be in favor of a
stricter, more informational, disclosure. For a second article on disclosure, he was
unavailable for comment. What kind of determination might be made in a court of law
regarding NWMLS attorneys who produced a form that seems to disregard county law to
disclose information that buyers needed? What kind of determination might a court of law
make regarding real estate offices that used it? What kind of judgment might the general
public make of professionals who, individually and as a group, ended up trapping buyers
under terrible jet noise instead of fully disclosing it? What decisions might be made based
on the fact that the disclosure violates the intent of the law to protect citizens, that it was
written for builders, and found in the builders section of the county ordinance? The result
of not using the 1992 disclosure has been devastating in three ways: First, and most
importantly, citizens were deprived of the opportunity to weigh noise as a factor in their
home purchase or rental choice. Houses under the jet path are less expensive than
comparable homes elsewhere. They might be on Ebeys Reserve, near the beautiful town
of Coupeville, or have a view. Sellers are more motivated so terms are better. Buyers
think they have found a good deal and are anxious to move on it. They are an easy sell
for realtors compared to other properties. Many people, especially those coming here to
retire, know nothing of the jets. A drive by view of the OLF would be of no help, either. No
2135
runway, military looking buildings or signage, and no jets unless they happen to be flying.
They unknowingly buy homes with jet noise and community harassment instead of one
where life could be normal. Second, the 1992 Noise Disclosure is the law, and realtors
will use their new version of it. Property values are likely to tank for all buyers, because
the new disclosure will adversely affect every seller, regardless of whether they did or did
not know about the noise when they bought, and regardless of what their realtor did or
did not do to personally tell them about the noise. Third, because everyone has assumed
they were told is true, including the Navy and the County Commissioners who in
December discovered that realtors use the wrong form, people in noise zones have been
ignored and persecuted. Jets became louder and flew more. Promises were not kept.
Misinformation abounds. People are harassed by neighbors, hatefully and gleefully. This
lie kills compassion and fuels much of the mean-spirited battle over the OLF. Because it
is so ingrained and creates a righteous, party-like atmosphere, many will probably never
give up the taunt you were told so shut up or move, even when they learn the truth.
County Commissioners and Oak Harbor City Council members openly display disregard
for complaints about the worst noise imaginable by wearing I Love Jet Noise T-shirts to
Commissioner/City Council Meetings and writing County Resolutions supporting the Navy
to show exactly where they stand, regardless of the suffering. At the EIS Scoping
Meeting, Commissioner Jill Johnson presented petitions with a statement that included
the lie at the top. She knew the truth, but insisted on being a part of the formal
presentation. She clutched them to her chest and refused to let anyone see it before
presenting them to the Navy. The use of persecution is tempting because of the benefits
it provides votes, money, power, popularity, security, and more. The pain of people
living under Growler jets would be harder to ignore without the lie to justify this grossly
cruel behavior. As COER (Citizens of Ebeys Reserve) increases the documentation of
the adverse affects of Growler jet noise, the lie becomes more and more important. It
would be much more difficult to dismiss the staggering amount of documentation of
physical and psychological harm without discrediting the people who are hurting. The
Navy, the County, and the City of Oak Harbor are complicit in realtors using the noise
disclosure for builders from 1993 to January 2014. The Minutes of the August 12, 2002
Island County Commissioners Meeting shows Navy Liaison, Rich Melass, supporting
and recommending the ordinance that contained the disclosure statement in use until
January, 2014. Commissioners Mike Shelton, Mac McDowell, and William Thorn adopted
the Ordinance (see meeting minutes above) containing the disclosure for builders that
was in stark contrast to the 1992 disclosure. The County should explain why, after
participating on a Task Force that noted the importance of a strong disclosure as a step
to stop a BRAC in their 1993 BRAC Report, the important information in the disclosure
was eliminated for builders and two separate disclosures were left to create confusion.
The County has been collecting taxes for the last 20 years based on inflated values on
sales resulting from non-disclosure. After the Navy changed their flight paths over the
past years, at least one owner has appealed her tax bill because Growlers now fly
directly over her home which she has been unable to sell. It was denied. The attitude and
comments made at the meeting were unprofessional and mean. See County Taxes for
more. Since the deception has been revealed, no local official has voiced any concern
that the Navy is flying Growler jets over a community where there has been no disclosure
at all since probably 1993. The Damage Cant Be Undone Listing realtors will now follow
the law, but past buyers will pay the price. All buyers who were misled about jet noise will
now have to disclose it to future buyers and lessees. Future buyers will be alarmed by the
2135
noise disclosure and do further Internet noise research. They will find the Lilly report,
revealing that the100+ decibel level included in the disclosure can actually be as much as
134 decibels (in bursts). And they will find documentation of the seriously detrimental
effects of the noise. They will find noise volume information and charts which will reveal
painful, illegal, roaring noise where few people will want to live. At some point the
NWMSL forms committee might decide to follow the law and attach a map. That will halt
many sales, especially for properties that are directly under the jets. The 21 year gap in
disclosure is the legacy of the actions of a few people who used their leadership roles to
disrupt what had been a normal, visible view of property value. Because it has now been
masked for so long and the jets have become so loud, the market will drop, and may
never fully recover. The lives of many people who have been forced to live with the jets
will never recover, either. Will I still be supporting the Navy by joining the class action suit
against real estate offices? You may have known about the jets before you bought, fully
support the Navy, accept or even love the jet noise, and yet be unwilling to pay the price
of a drop in property values because realtors failed to use the required disclosure. Part of
the suit will include a thorough assessment completed by experts of exactly how much
the drop in value of your property is likely to be. There are also people who did not know
about the jets who also support action against disclosure deception. They may be neutral
about the Navy, want to close the OLF, might belong to a different political party, have a
different religion, or raise their kids differently. But those are separate issues. If the legal
disclosure had been consistently used, most of the complainers would not be living in the
noise zones because they would have bought somewhere else. Imagine this community
without the noise controversy. Thats what the Navy wants and needs. What can you do?
Share this information with other people living in the noise zones in both Coupeville and
Oak Harbor. Cut the link to this site: http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/, and
paste it into emails for people who should know. Go to the Action Page that contains
information about legal action, including links to attorneys that want to represent you.
They can answer your questions about a possible class action lawsuit against the
company that listed your home. Your call, and their representation, involves no legal fees
for you. Tell the press, the Navy, County Commissioners, mayors, congressional
representatives and your neighbors how you feel. Share your story on this site and ask
others to tell their story. Your stories may or may not include names, but each story
makes a huge difference. Go to the Citizens of the Ebeys Reserve page for further
action. What we bought; what we got. A mental picture is worth a thousand words.
Remember what you thought you were getting when you bought your home. You may
have imagined you could play at the beach, bike ride, hike, and, in general, enjoy a
normal life. See it in your minds eye. Next, remember when you discovered what life
under the jets really was, and realized what you could expect for your future. Click to
enlarge. Deprived of the opportunity to accurately weigh options Remember the options
you considered when you bought your home. Remember the factors you considered
when making your decision. If you had not been deprived of noise information, would you
have made the same decision? Click to enlarge.
2135
(b)(6)
2136
,
Comment: The Navy should reflect on their current policy of considering citizens as
collateral damage in pursuit of their mission. What plans are in place to protect citizens
from the awful noise, especially as more and more planes are being requested? The
following letter was sent to all members of the Armed Services Committees and the
Appropriations Committees and appears on the Disclosure Deception web site. How
does the general knowledge of what the Navy does is doing affect image, and ultimately
control of operations? The formatting prevents the visuals and links to important
documentation from being viewed. Find the complete version at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/asc-open-letter/ ASC Open Letter To:
Members of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (This letter has
now been sent to the both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee Members,
as well) Regarding: Critical information on the abuse and persecution of families living
directly under the flight path of Growler jets Congress has authorized the continual
escalation of noise produced by EA-18 Growler jets flying as low as 250 feet over
densely populated civilian neighborhoods at the Outlying Field, Coupeville, near the
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. An additional 36 planes have been requested, and 70
more are in the planning stages. That would almost double the number that already
constitute a health emergency and life disruption that is indescribable. An Environmental
Impact Study on the Growlers is now underway, but the Navy has demonstrated an
inability to police itself, evidenced by the fact that this study would not have been
conducted at all if enraged citizens had not brought expensive legal action against the
Navy in Federal Court to force its preparation. At its completion, we expect a No Impact
rubber stamp based on comments already made by the Base Commander expressing
the Navy position. These additional jets will fly over families who already suffer from the
worst noise abuse experienced at any air station in the United States because protection
recommended by the FAA, EPA, and DoD has been withheld from them in violation of
Island County law. This is what happened: 1. Island County, without sufficient Navy
influence used to prevent it, allowed homes to be built in crash zones where the Navy
AICUZ says residential use is incompatible. Permits are still issued there. 2. Island
County adopted misleading disclosure language for builders which provided no jet noise
information at all and the Navy went on record as supporting and recommending it. 3. For
20 years, Whidbey Island realtors used the misleading builders disclosure for home
buyers and renters, instead of the original, legal disclosure used for residences. 4.
Civilians, who unknowingly bought property in a crash zone, learned too late that their
lives will forever be dictated by the soundtrack of Growler jets circling low overhead,
again and again, until they move. 5. A class action law suit is on track to be filed over the
next few weeks against real estate companies to recover the loss in property value that
will result because the legal disclosure that was reinstated in January will surely alarm
new buyers. This has been the result: 1. The noise zone population has suffered health
problems, psychological pain and financial loss. 2. Predictably, these people complained,
documented the severe health risks of noise, and protested. 3. Because the deception
was hidden and they were told was assumed, there has been wide-spread harassment
of complainers in the community, as well as persecution by leadership at all levels of
government and by the military. 4. Decisions continue to be made that dramatically
escalate the problem and deny any protection, including the current request to fund 36
additional Growlers with 70 needed beyond that. 5. There is evidence that the EIS now
being conducted will be flawed, as evidenced by a recent letter written in June 2014 by
the NASWI Base Commander, Captain Nortier to Senator Cantwells office in response to
a constituent complaining about inadequate disclosure. In what appears to be a Navy
position statement, he claimed disclosure did indeed occur over the past 20 years,
despite well documented information presented to him by the County and numerous
citizens in correspondence and one-on-one conversations. He also made a number of
additional disturbing comments showing a disregard for both factual information and for
noise zone sufferers. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, you should be
aware of the magnitude of this situation. The Noise levels here would break all laws ever
devised by county, city, or state governments, as well as laws and guidelines set by
OSHA, the FAA, and the EPA. These extreme levels are not even included on most
published noise charts. Congress has put the Navy above the law, and total control has
led to abuse. The Armed Services Committee is at a decision point: 1. Could some of the
funds being tagged for more planes be used instead to move training to a new or different
field that does not entail civilian abuse? We live in the crash zones less than a mile from
the OLF Coupeville runway where touch and go operations occur. The field cannot
sustain its current use and certainly cannot meet the demands of future defense
requirements. 2. Can the United States defend this country AND do so without inflicting
harm on its own citizens? We believe both can be done. We are suffering and we need
your help! Limits must be set on military activity. Civilian protection must be funded along
with any plans to expand. Congress cannot continue to leave the Navy lawless. Is it wise
to wait for the Navy to conduct an Environmental Impact Study on itself and expect the
results to objectively reveal the true impact of Growlers jets on this community? Can any
entity police itself? Should the checks and balances provided by the Environmental
Protection Agency again be put into place since local noise law enforcement has failed
miserably? We would appreciate a response on this very important matter. For an
overview and documentation of these issues, see the web site, Citizens Harmed by
Disclosure Deception. For a summary, visit these pages first: EIS Deception Noise
Volume Noise Annoyance Stop 36 More Growlers Health Emergency Thank you for your
consideration. Respectfully, Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception
2136
(b)(6)
2137
,
Comment: A citizen wrote a letter to Senator John McCain complaining that a letter
written by Captain Nortier regarding concerns she had expressed to Senator Cantwell
had merely discounted them, offering little in response. Senator McCain wrote the
Secretary of the Navy asking for an investigation, including claims made by two citizens
groups Citizens of the Ebeys Reserve and Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception.
The letter written in response was the original letter from Captain Nortier, making no
attempt to investigate at all. Will the now Navy actually conduct that investigation,
including why these infuriating statements were used in the place of research, instead of
ignoring Senator John McCain? The formatting prevents the visuals and links to
important documentation from being viewed. Find the complete version at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/senator-john-mccain-responds/ Senator John
McCain represents the best of the United States Navy and Congressional leadership.
Senator McCains father and grand-father were both 4-Star Admirals. He was a pilot in
the Vietnam War when his plane was shot down and we all know of his courage as a
prisoner of war. He retired as a Captain from the Navy, and has had a lengthy career
serving his country in both the House and the Senate, often departing from party lines to
do what is right. Senator McCain has heard our message and wants to ensure our
protection. He has forwarded the email, along with his response, to our local
representatives and the Secretary of the Navy(see links below). We are not his
constituents from whom he could expect votes; nevertheless, he is willing to look
carefully at a minority population being abused by the military to determine whether the
Navy has lost sight of its dual role to defend the nation AND protect its civilian neighbors.
We are very encouraged by Senator McCains interest in the terror in our skies and the
responsibility of the Armed Services Committee where he has served for many years,
including in his past role as Ranking Member. We are hopeful that Congress will research
the full impact of current and future Growler jets on the health and well-being of this
community. We want the Call Out to Congress Campaign to continue to be successful in
reaching others who make the decisions that result in Growler jets flying at low altitude
over neighborhoods within a mile of touch-down, producing unimaginable, life altering
noise with no protection for the population below. Senator McCain has shown an interest
in our cause, but his is only one vote. Favorable decisions will require many more. To
learn more about the Call-Out to Congress Campaign, Go to Stop 36 More Growlers!! for
details on how you can get involved. Our voice must be heard loud and clear. Join us as
we call out to Congress by phone, fax, and email. ASC Open Letter Read Senator John
McCain Response letter Read his enclosure forwarded to the Secretary of the Navy The
author of the email has asked to remain anonymous
(b)(6)
2138
,
Comments: Is Congressional intervention required for the completion of a valid EIS?
Senator McCain has said publically that he will monitor the process and citizens will
follow up to ask that he do so. It is important that every person involved in the EIS follow
the intent of the investigation instead of using it to stay on course with Navy goals with
official, unsubstantiated findings of no impact. The following was copied from the web
site, Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception. The formatting prevents the visuals and
links to important documentation from being viewed. Find the complete version at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/eis-deception/ EIS Deception The current
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on the EA18-G Growler jets is not to be trusted.
Recently, Senator John McCain asked the Secretary of the Navy to research allegations
of noise abuse from citizen groups. A letter with the Navy Position was provided in
response. (*see links to letters and other documentation below). The following statements
reveal probable bias in the EIS currently being conducted. Unfortunately, instead of an
objective study to prevent harmful impact, the EIS process has degraded into a
maneuver to manipulate information, laws, and guidelines to stay on track with Navy
goals. Follow the links for documentation that refutes each statement: 1. There are no
significant health risks to populations in the Noise Zones. 2. The OLF is the best location
for pilot training and no other location should be considered. 3. The Navy followed NEPA
guidelines to study impact before replacing Prowlers with Growlers. 4. Noise disclosure
has occurred since 1992 and disclosure has been a Navy priority to ensure that those
purchasing property under the jet paths know the full extent of the noise. 5. Growlers
are quieter than Prowlers and both are safe flying low, directly above homes. 6. There is
no Navy easement over properties in Admirals Cove. 7. The Navy measures noise and
presents it in an effective way to both determine the impact of the level of noise on health
and to use when making land use recommendations. See Noise Volume, Noise
Annoyance, and Health Emergency, AICUZ Brochures. 8. Limits to operations can be
set. The intent is wrong; therefore, the study will be invalid unless it is monitored by
Congress In defiance of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), Growlers
were based here before they were ever studied because the Navy presented them as
being quieter. After exposure to the noise revealed they were not, the Navy refused
requests to conduct an EIS. Legal action was finally taken to stop the flights. Now, the
language used describing the current EIS for 36 additional Growlers suggests that the
impact of the initial transition from Prowlers to Growlers wont be studied, even now.
The validity of the outcome will depend on the intent of those conducting and presenting
the study and there is no intent to protect the civilian population at the expense of military
objectives. Hundreds of emails, calls, faxes, and letters have gone out to Congress to
inform members of both the Appropriations and Armed Services Committees of the
impact Growler jets are having on the lives of people living in the Noise Zones. These
committees will soon make decisions on whether or not to send even more. These
decisions should be based on unbiased information which the EIS will not provide.
Should Congress expect the Navy to objectively study itself? Consider this: The mission
of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning
wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas. Protecting civilians
from the impact of Growler jets is incompatible with this mission. The conflict of interest in
the Navy studying itself is substantial. Each finding of No Impact on the minority Noise
Zone population of complainers results in the benefit of continued base expansion. No

Impact will be celebrated by the huge military and civilian population which benefits from
noise abuse. Objective self-regulation is clearly an unrealistic expectation. Conflict with
civilians drains resources. Low-flying jets and roaring noise cause serious harm.
Predictably, enraged citizens have taken every measure available to defend their
families. Because no clear limits to abuse have been set by Congress, the Navy must
expend valuable time, energy, money, and expertise to deal with: law suits and
legislative hearings; meetings with community leaders, legislative leaders, and the
public; public relations efforts including the press and other media; complaint lines;
informational materials; mail, email, phone, and personal exchanges. Congress must
recognize that the Navy has dangerously exceeded its limits and is on a collision course
with a health disaster. The Navy, like any government entity, cannot police itself.
Congress should stop operations until the EIS is complete. Add your voice to those
asking Congress to rein in the Navy. Go to the Stop 36 More Growlers! page for
information. *Letters Senator John McCain letter to the Secretary of the Navy Navy
response to complaints of abuse Additional documentation can be found in Navy
Documents and Other Documents and in the Links and Files section of the COER web
site.
2138
(b)(6)
2139
,
Comments: The Navy said there is no health impact associated with the Growler jets
stationed at NASWI now, and will likely find there is none when they add more. The
finding has been different in other locations, with the Navy paying millions. Will the Navy
count on the fact this is a small population without the resources to sue, instead of
dealing with the financial resources in Japan and Virginia, where they had to pay? Will
the Navy readily accept the dire health consequences on this population as they accept
the noise related health costs of their own services people? The following was copied
from the web site, Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception: The formatting prevents the
visuals and links to important documentation from being viewed. Find the complete
version at http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/eis-deception/health-risks/ No
Health Risks Deception Navy position: There are no significant health risks to
populations in the Noise Zones Nortier Letter Read a portion of the following letter written
by Captain Nortier which presents the Navy position on the health impacts of Growlers,
discounting the effects of the noise they produce: While there are some studies
purporting to show hearing loss due to aircraft operations, those studies have modeled
commercial airports with relatively constant noise levels. Current studies are inconclusive
about the effects of intermittent aircraft noise on people. While there is some evidence
that long-term exposure (i.e. over 30 years) to very high noise levels may contribute to
hearing loss, these studies typically examined individuals exposed to noise in the
workplace, which can be relatively constant. This type of exposure is not analogous to
noise experienced by communities exposed to military air operations, due to the
intermittent nature of these operations. Even during periods of heavy operations, the high
noise levels at OLF Coupeville are not constant and the noise impacts are intermittent.
While airfield noise can cause speech interference and sleep disturbance, current
research does not support a relationship between aircraft noise exposure and
non-auditory health impacts for residents living near military airfields. Research with
respect to health impacts due to aircraft noise has not produced a consensus within the
scientific community. Rebuttal The studies cited are not comparable because no study of
noise this extreme has ever been conducted. Any study on Growler jet noise to determine
a direct connection with health impacts would require examining people in the noise
zones here. Nowhere else are civilian populations exposed to levels of noise at 119 dBa
and 134 dB, both of which definitely cause hearing loss after very limited exposure. The
Navy has overlooked The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health as a
source of information about hearing loss. NIOSH estimates 115 to 120 dBA as the critical
noise level at which human hearing is subject to instantaneous permanent damage
effects. Without adequate hearing protection, any exposure to noise levels above 115
dBA is likely to cause some degree of permanent hearing threshold shift. The Permissible
Noise Level Exposure Chart below is routinely exceeded in many areas around the OLF:
As the Navy is aware, suing the Navy for noise-induced health problems is risky, just as it
was when people dying of cancer sued cigarette companies. The companies finally lost
after decades of court battle because of the lucky appearance of an internal memo. The
Navy has its own study on Growler noise that recommends mitigation action by the Navy
to provide better hearing protection for carrier flight crews and make relatively simple
changes to the Growler engines. It notes payments to veterans in the billions of dollars
for service-connected hearing loss. See 2009 Navy Recommendations for Noise
Reduction and scroll through for highlighted text. Cause and effect for hearing loss is not
provable, but it is predictable. The reason carrier crews would be court martialed if they
refused to wear state of the art ear protection is the reason no study should even be
required. This Noise Zone population lives and works right under the jets, too, including
children, the elderly, and those who already have health problems that are worsened by
noise. The Health Emergency page lists many studies on the health effects of noise.
Hearing loss is not the most serious concern. If the Navy is going to do an exhaustive
literature review, this would be a good place to start.
2139
(b)(6)
2140
,
Comments: The Navy position is that, in addition to the better duty experience, image,
convenience for Navy families, and lower fuel costs in using the Coupeville OLF, it is the
only location that meets the training needs of pilots. The following was copied from the
web site, Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception. The formatting prevents the visuals
and links to important documentation from being viewed. Find the complete version at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/eis-deception/olf/ OLF is Best Deception
Navy Position: The OLF provides the best conditions for pilot training; no other location
will be considered. As a part of the Contact Congress campaign, a Noise Zone resident
wrote to Senator John McCain about a number of issues, including the noise of Growlers
taking off over her home in Coupeville. Senator McCain asked the Secretary of the Navy
to respond to her letter, as well as claims from both Citizens Harmed by Disclosure
Deception and Citizens of the Ebeys Reserve. NASWI Base Commander, Captain
Michael Nortier provided the Navy response in his letter to Senator McCain. It is the
answer that has often been given when the Navy is asked to move the OLF: The training
conducted at NAS Whidbey Island, both at Ault Field and at OLF Coupeville, is critical for
our naval aviators and enables their support of the Navys global mission. FCPLs are a
highly complex flight exercise that trains pilots for landing on moving aircraft carriers.
They are conducted on a runway that is designed to simulate the flight deck on an aircraft
carrier. This exercise is conducted in a racetrack type pattern as closely resembling the
pattern flown at sea to an actual carrier landing. OLF Coupeville is ideal for conducting
FLCPs as it is located in a relatively rural location. That characteristic is also critical for
night-time landing practice as there is low ambient light, similar to what pilots experience
at sea. Landing on an aircraft carrier is one of the most challenging tasks a pilot can
perform, and it is a perishable skill that requires training just prior to each underway
carrier embarkation. There are a number of reasons why the OLF Coupeville is not a
suitable training location for citizens, for pilots, for the Navy, and for national defense
Health impacts Negative health impacts on citizens living below Growlers operations in
Japan are the same as those in the U.S. The Navy may not acknowledge them, but the
Japanese government does and expects the Navy to pay 75% of the damages
awarded to the citizens of Atsugi, Japan, in May, 2014. The Stars and Stripes reports:
The Japanese government must pay $70 million to residents living near Naval Air
Facility Atsugi as compensation for noise created by aircraft at the base, a Yokohama
District Court ruled Wednesday. We ask the U.S. government, therefore, to pay their
responsibility this time, by taking seriously the fact that the Japanese court acknowledged
the serious health hazards the noise has been inflicting on residents in the neighboring
communities, Tokio Kaneko, deputy leader of the plaintiffs group, said in a phone
interview with Stars and Stripes. The Navy must stop imposing comparable serious
health hazards on the residents of Coupeville. US courts will not require it, so Congress
must. Wind direction Carriers turn to head into the wind when planes land. Pilots tilt up at
full throttle and use any wind under the wings to help slow the plane down. They then
stall to drop down. They do this at full throttle in case they dont catch the arresting wires
and must lift off again. It is amazing and extraordinarily difficult. At the OLF, planes often
land with the wind, at one of the most windy locations anywhere in the US, making a
challenging task less similar to what pilots experience at sea. Weather Weather
prevents many scheduled training sessions due to wind, fog, rain and lightning. Climate
change predictions from the University of Washington indicate these conditions will
increase. Fewer days and an increased number of planes will greatly increase the
24-hour noise impacts on residents. Population growth will clash with the ever-increasing
need to develop VAQ capabilities. The Pacific Northwest is one of the fastest growing
areas in the nation. A 1986 Navy study suggested the OLF be moved because of
encroachment and provided an estimate of the cost. Over the past 27 years, the problem
has dramatically worsened. Impossibly loud noise has combined with persecution a
very stressful, unhealthy combination. The Navy has seen the potential in expanded use
of the Growlers which, because they will all be carrier-based, will require a dramatic
increase in field carrier landing practice. In addition to the next 36 Growlers requested,
the Navy has plans for more. More people, more planes flying over more homes in very
limited space. The Navys decision to base all Growlers at NASWI jeopardizes the entire
region when the health, safety, and quality of life should be a priority. Altitude The graphic
below defines the preferred flight path for carrier landing practice at the OLF. It shows the
low altitude plans fly on the approach to a carrier, a pattern closely resembling the
pattern flown at sea. Since the lawsuit, on the approach to the OLF, they have been
seen flying higher and dropping faster. Will this continue after the EIS? Variation from the
pattern is not ideal for safe pilot practice and will probably not continue. Varied and tight
flight tracks Crash zones are designated in areas at either side of military runways, based
on distance from touchdown and width. Look at the first graphic below to see how all of
Admirals Cove is a the red crash zone as defined by these measurements. Click to
enlarge.
2140
(b)(6)
2141
,
Comments: The Navy position is that, in addition to the better duty experience, image,
convenience for Navy families, and lower fuel costs in using the Coupeville OLF, it is the
only location that meets the training needs of pilots. The following was copied from the
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/eis-deception/olf/ OLF is Best Deception
Navy Position: The OLF provides the best conditions for pilot training; no other location
will be considered. As a part of the Contact Congress campaign, a Noise Zone resident
wrote to Senator John McCain about a number of issues, including the noise of Growlers
taking off over her home in Coupeville. Senator McCain asked the Secretary of the Navy
to respond to her letter, as well as claims from both Citizens Harmed by Disclosure
Deception and Citizens of the Ebeys Reserve. NASWI Base Commander, Captain
Michael Nortier provided the Navy response in his letter to Senator McCain. It is the
answer that has often been given when the Navy is asked to move the OLF: The training
conducted at NAS Whidbey Island, both at Ault Field and at OLF Coupeville, is critical for
our naval aviators and enables their support of the Navys global mission. FCPLs are a
highly complex flight exercise that trains pilots for landing on moving aircraft carriers.
They are conducted on a runway that is designed to simulate the flight deck on an aircraft
carrier. This exercise is conducted in a racetrack type pattern as closely resembling the
pattern flown at sea to an actual carrier landing. OLF Coupeville is ideal for conducting
FLCPs as it is located in a relatively rural location. That characteristic is also critical for
night-time landing practice as there is low ambient light, similar to what pilots experience
at sea. Landing on an aircraft carrier is one of the most challenging tasks a pilot can
perform, and it is a perishable skill that requires training just prior to each underway
carrier embarkation. There are a number of reasons why the OLF Coupeville is not a
suitable training location for citizens, for pilots, for the Navy, and for national defense
Health impacts Negative health impacts on citizens living below Growlers operations in
Japan are the same as those in the U.S. The Navy may not acknowledge them, but the
Japanese government does and expects the Navy to pay 75% of the damages
awarded to the citizens of Atsugi, Japan, in May, 2014. The Stars and Stripes reports:
The Japanese government must pay $70 million to residents living near Naval Air
Facility Atsugi as compensation for noise created by aircraft at the base, a Yokohama
District Court ruled Wednesday. We ask the U.S. government, therefore, to pay their
responsibility this time, by taking seriously the fact that the Japanese court acknowledged
the serious health hazards the noise has been inflicting on residents in the neighboring
communities, Tokio Kaneko, deputy leader of the plaintiffs group, said in a phone
interview with Stars and Stripes. The Navy must stop imposing comparable serious
health hazards on the residents of Coupeville. US courts will not require it, so Congress
must. Wind direction Carriers turn to head into the wind when planes land. Pilots tilt up at
full throttle and use any wind under the wings to help slow the plane down. They then
stall to drop down. They do this at full throttle in case they dont catch the arresting wires
and must lift off again. It is amazing and extraordinarily difficult. At the OLF, planes often
land with the wind, at one of the most windy locations anywhere in the US, making a
challenging task less similar to what pilots experience at sea. Weather Weather
prevents many scheduled training sessions due to wind, fog, rain and lightning. Climate
change predictions from the University of Washington indicate these conditions will
increase. Fewer days and an increased number of planes will greatly increase the
24-hour noise impacts on residents. Population growth will clash with the ever-increasing
need to develop VAQ capabilities. The Pacific Northwest is one of the fastest growing
areas in the nation. A 1986 Navy study suggested the OLF be moved because of
encroachment and provided an estimate of the cost. Over the past 27 years, the problem
has dramatically worsened. Impossibly loud noise has combined with persecution a
very stressful, unhealthy combination. The Navy has seen the potential in expanded use
of the Growlers which, because they will all be carrier-based, will require a dramatic
increase in field carrier landing practice. In addition to the next 36 Growlers requested,
the Navy has plans for more. More people, more planes flying over more homes in very
limited space. The Navys decision to base all Growlers at NASWI jeopardizes the entire
region when the health, safety, and quality of life should be a priority. Altitude The graphic
below defines the preferred flight path for carrier landing practice at the OLF. It shows the
low altitude plans fly on the approach to a carrier, a pattern closely resembling the
pattern flown at sea. Since the lawsuit, on the approach to the OLF, they have been
seen flying higher and dropping faster. Will this continue after the EIS? Variation from the
pattern is not ideal for safe pilot practice and will probably not continue. Varied and tight
flight tracks Crash zones are designated in areas at either side of military runways, based
on distance from touchdown and width. Look at the first graphic below to see how all of
Admirals Cove is a the red crash zone as defined by these measurements. Click to
enlarge.
2141
(b)(6)
2142
,
Comments: Naval leaders who write position statements and naval officers who sign
them should be held accountable when presenting information that is untrue to the public.
It tarnishes the image of the Navy and affects credibility. The following was copied from
the web site, Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception. The formatting prevents the
version at http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/eis-deception/noise-disclosure/ Navy
position: Noise disclosure has occurred since 1992. A resident in the Noise Zones wrote
to Senator John McCain about the failure of realtors to provide any disclosure of a
military base or information about jet noise which has been required by law over the last
20 years. He responded and forwarded the letter to the Secretary of the Navy asking for
a response to the claims. NASWI Base Commander, Captain Nortier, provided the
response to Senator McCain including the following remarks. As you read the four
numbered statements below, it is important to note that Captain Nortier: has access to
local newspapers, including the Seattle Times, which have all covered the failure of
realtors to provide noise closure several times, knows of this Disclosure Deception web
site, received numerous emails detailing the problems, knows there is a class action
lawsuit pending against realtors for 20 years of non-disclosure, and has had the issue
presented to him personally in one-on-one conversations, in depth, several times, though
he appeared to be hearing it for the first time on each occasion. The following statements
from his letter may be the No Impact response for EIS Comments asking the Navy to
study whether Growler jets should fly over densely populated neighborhoods where
there has been no jet noise disclosure for decades. He wrote: 1. The Navy has worked
with local communities, including realtors, to help residents understand the potential
noise impacts that are an inherent part of flight operations. 2. The Navy is actively
partnering with local communities to improve the noise disclosure process and
emphasize noise effects to potential buyers. 3. While the Navy advocates the use of
noise disclosures to the community and to potential home buyers and renters, the
enactment of noise disclosure requirements is the responsibility and purview of zoning
authorities. 4. Island County and Oak Harbor both require a noise disclosure to a real
estate transaction and have done so since 1992. The Town of Coupeville has chosen not
to require a noise disclosure for real estate transactions. Rebuttal Lets look at these
statements one at a time. Each of them is deeply disturbing. 1. NASWI has had many
resources helpful to ensure noise disclosure available, developed by as a part of the Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone program. The purpose of the AICUZ program is to
protect the health, safety and welfare from noise and hazards through compatible
development in the airport environment. The NASWI AICUZ brochure was produced as a
part of that program, but there is no evidence that it was ever used, despite the
considerable influence of the Navy on the real estate community. This brochure, like the
Encroachment Prevention Plan, is only effective if it is used. Lip service is not enough
and buyers paid the price. 2. If this partnering did occur, there is no evidence. There is
evidence in the 2002 Island County Commissioners Meeting Minutes of the Navy Liaison
supporting and recommending the wording that became the misleading disclosure
which had no intent to disclose noise to prevent harm to buyers. Was there base
leadership promoting disclosure? Unlikely, and it definitely does not exist now. The
current Base Commander gives high ratings for Navy performance as a member of the
realtor-county-Navy team providing disclosure for Noise Zone buyers, despite the fact
that the noise disclosure problem could not be worse. 3. The Navy skirts responsibility for
failure to disclose by saying that responsibility lies with area realtors and Island County. It
is likely that most any group of 10 people could come up with effective ways for the Navy
to use influence despite having no authority. Surely anyone in the Navy at a leadership
level more concerned about the Noise Zone population could have produced a better
result. 4. The statement that disclosure has occurred is embarrassing to attribute to a
Navy representative as well informed as Captain Nortier. It discounts the harm done to
buyers who were not provided with legally required information a disclosure written to
protect the base in from possible base closure in 1992. It shows a failure to grasp that the
legal disclosure was replaced to eliminate meaningful disclosure, yet protect realtors and
the county from non-disclosure. The Captain seems to be supporting the effort to blame
uninformed buyers for the misery they have endured all these years the very foundation
of their on-going persecution. In summary, these statements are deceptive. The Navy
cannot police itself and Navy leadership cannot be trusted to conduct this EIS process.
2142
(b)(6)
2143
,
Comments: The Navy says Prowler Noise is Comparable to Growler Noise, but fails to
define comparable, making it seem it is safe for either one to fly low over homes for
routine carrier landing practice in Coupeville. The following was copied from the web site,
Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception. The formatting prevents the visuals and links
to important documentation from being viewed. Find the complete version at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/prowler-growler/ A Coupeville resident wrote a
letter to Senator John McCain about her frustration with the Growlers flying directly over
her home, which they had never done in the past. She said: My husband and I built our
home in Coupeville ten years ago at __. We have loved the beauty and tranquility of this
area and have felt so fortunate to be part of Ebeys Landing National Historical Reserve.
When we purchased our property we were not given the county legal noise disclosure
and maps. We had no idea our property was directly under the Navy Outlying Field FCLP
flight path. Starting in 2011 our lives have turned into a nightmare with the arrival of the
Navy growlers. The growler jet fly overs are louder than previous jets, more frequent and
continuous without breaks , and longer in duration (four hours without a break versus less
than one hour!), and often extending to one in the morning. The extreme noise is causing
hearing damage, sleep loss and an overall unpleasant and unhealthy environment for
residents, tourists and our animals. Ironically, this wonderful National Historical Reserve
which weve all come to love for the pristine beauty, serenity and peaceful living is being
systematically degraded by excessive noise and environmental pollution. Although the
local economy needs and wants the tourists visiting theyre being driven away. Property
values are down due to the noise which impacts tax revenues. Fewer people want to
move here and fewer people can sell their homes. Living with all the windows closed,
earplugs in, extreme noise until 1AM, and health and lack of sleep related issues is
disgraceful in a highly populated National Reserve such as this. We are being tortured by
the very government that is here to protect us. Senator McCain asked the Secretary of
the Navy to respond. Captain Nortier, NASWI Base Commander wrote this as the Navy
response: Noise studies conducted prior to the aircrafts introduction show that the
decibel levels for the Growler and the aircraft it is replacing, the EA-6B Prowler, are
comparable. However, the aircraft do have different sound frequency signatures, and it is
noted that the Growlers create a distinctly different sound. Is a comparison between the
Prowlers and Growlers really the point? Here are the Navys computer-modeled
measurement of the noise: Here are the on-the-ground dB measurements taken in the
Lilly Report, showing 134 dB at position 1. There is an 18 dB difference between the
Navy measurement and the Lilly Report measurement. Look at the Change in Perceived
Loudness chart below, showing a description of the almost 20 dB difference between
what was measured at Position #1 in the Lilly report and the Navy measurement of the
noise: The Navy chart does show the measurement for 600 feet, but even a 10 dB
difference would probably still qualify for the Dramatic . . . Twice as Loud level on the
chart. EIS Comments already sent to the Navy include many citizens noting the striking
difference between the two planes. Civilians do not have the opportunity to monitor Navy
measurements, but people have moved, protested, put up web sites, become activist,
gone to Washington, and much more over the difference. What point is the Base
Commander making with this comparison? The response provided by the Navy is scary
on two levels: 1. The Navy is still saying the transition to Growlers does not need to be
studied because the noise is the same, justifying the study of only the proposed
additional Growlers in this EIS, and 2. In the end, the Navy has an easement over
Admirals Cove and if their measurements say the noise is the same, they can continue
submitting people to noise torture. Captain Nortier provides no reaction at all to the pain
voiced in the initial letter, nor should he. The Navy has its mission and civilians are
collateral damage. It is up to Congress to draw the line.
2143
(b)(6)
2144
,
Comments: The Navy must investigate the Navy role in there being no record of a Navy
easement over all properties in Admirals Cove. It does not show up in a title search,
which would give buyers an opportunity to buy elsewhere, because the Navy did not
record it. Also, since the Navy could have prevented buyers from purchasing property
with no knowledge of this easement, should the Navy continue training operations flying
low over these homes where people had not choice about the life they are forced to live?
The Navy must also investigate why Navy representatives would deny the easement. The
following was copied from Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception. The formatting
prevents the visuals and links to important documentation from being viewed. Find the
complete version at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/eis-deception/navy-easement/ Navy Position:
There is no Navy easement over properties in Admirals Cove. Title insurance is
purchased for protection. No one wants to purchase property and later find that the Navy
has a permanent easement to fly Growler jets low, right over Admirals Cove homes,
flying operations that have, and could again, exceed 30,000 a year. That is why people
purchase title insurance to eliminate such a horrible possibility. How did Admirals Cove
property owners learn there is an easement? In 1992, 46 property owners filed an action
against the United States (Navy) alleging that the Government took their private property
for public use without paying just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Low
altitude flights are illegal everywhere. The Supreme Court has ruled takings at altitudes
under 500 feet. But, after a long, expensive, and devastating battle, they lost because the
Navy has an easement to fly loud and low over their homes. They learned that what the
Navy can do is determined by what they have done, over a period of time, decades ago:
They can fly 30,000 operations a year, low over roof-tops, because that is what they did
in the 1990s. They can fly Growlers because they claim they produce the same noise
level as Prowlers. As owners have come and gone over the years, no one knows of the
easement except those that get close to actually suing the Navy who under any other
circumstances would be violating the Fifth Amendment. Why isnt this easement
discovered during a title search? If the Navy had seen to it that their easement was
recorded, no home owner would suffer this awful surprise. The easement would show up
in each title search and the appropriate decision could be made. Because it does not,
unsuspecting buyers are trapped. Even people who receive a noise disclosure will not
know how much worse their problem could become. As the Navy vastly expands where it
flies, homeowners in the surrounding areas must fight this battle early, before an
easement is established. Does the Navy want this easement revealed? The Navy fought
the plaintiffs in these proceedings. (b)(6)
, the NASWI Liaison, was among those
who took an active role. The Navy proved they had the easement, then did not record it.
Now, the Navy denies it exists, as revealed in the following email correspondence with
Navy Liaison (b)(6)
just last year when she was asked if an easement existed
over a home in Admirals Cove. After the question was asked, (b)(6)
requested the
parcel number. After it was provided, she responded that the Navy does not own an
easement. Click to enlarge. This easement is really the bottom line in any legal battle with
the Navy. The Navy will win, using any means necessary to accomplish their mission.
Only Congress can ensure that military objectives are achieved in a humane way. Read
the entire ruling in ARGENT v US
(b)(6)
2145
,
Comments: The ability of the Navy to determine noise levels using DNL measurements
and to determine land use and the safe use of the OLF Coupeville are based on the
ability of the Navy to set limits. The Navy must examine this faulty logic because limits
cannot be set. The Navy states this fact in routine communications including weekly flight
schedules and it has been demonstrated in time of national need. The following was
copied from Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception. The formatting prevents the
version at http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/eis-deception/limits-to-operations/
EIS studies are based on the ability of the Navy to set limits. In his letter written on behalf
of the Secretary of the Navy, Captain Nortier said: In preparation for the transition of the
EA-6B aircraft to the EA-18 aircraft, the Navy conducted an Environmental Assessment
(EA) in 2005 in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act. The EA
included operational projections for OLF Coupeville flight operations of 6,120 operations
annually. The 6,120 number was exceeded by May of 2013 and it took a lawsuit to stop
the flights. Limits on operation can be estimated, but the actual number are determined
by national requirements. As Nortier also said: Consistent with the 2005 EA, the Navy
intends to conduct around 6,120 Field Carrier Landing Practices (FCLPs) this year at
OLF Coupeville. Additionally, in September 2013, the Navy initiated an Environmental
Impact Statement study to address EA-18G operations at Ault Field and the OLF
Coupeville for future EA-18G operational changes. The Navy has used the OLF
Coupeville for FCLPs since 1967. Overall operations have fluctuated depending upon
national requirements. The tempo of operations at the OLF are driven by carrier
deployment schedules and training requirements. Historically, those operations exceeded
more than 30,000 operations annually, peaking in the early 2990s. Each landing and
takeoff is counted as an individual operation; for example, one landing and subsequent
takeoff of OLF Coupeville is two operations. A typical FCPL training period lasts about 45
minutes with 3-5 aircraft flying in a pattern. While there are periods of concentrated FCLP
training, these periods are followed by little or no activity. There can be no EIS
concerning the OLF Coupeville because limits cannot be set. The field must stand ready
to meet the needs of national defense despite the civilian population living below the flight
paths. Comments: Navy noise affects real estate value and should lower county taxes if
noise makes the value go down. Unfortunately, the drop in property values with more
flights and more complete noise disclosure may not mean tax relief for people under the
flight paths. The Navy must recognize the severe impact it has on the lives and financial
state of civilians. The following was copied from Citizens Harmed by Disclosure
Deception. The formatting prevents the visuals and links to important documentation from
being viewed. Find the complete version at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/county-taxes/ County Taxes The tax base is an
important revenue source for Island County. Over the past 20 years, use of a Noise
Disclosure that failed to provide legal information about the military base or jet noise was
a boon to a suffering Island County Budget. In 1991, a plan for North Whidbey
improvement was initiated. In 1993 it became the North Whidbey Community Diversity
Action Plan. One of the primary goals was to create revenue for the plan. The steering
committee included a County Commissioner, Oak Harbor City Council Members, and
representatives from the Board of Real Estate and other community leaders who worked
tirelessly, producing an impressive plan. During this same time period, NASWI appeared
on a BRAC (base closure) list, compounding the Countys economic problems. Because
of FAA, EPA, and DoD recommendations, a Noise Disclosure intended to disclose the
full extent of the noise was adopted into Island County law to safeguard the base. As it
became clear that full disclosure would alarm both buyers and sellers, it was also
recognized that: property values would go down which would lower the tax base,
properties would be more difficult for realtors to sell, and overall realtors commissions
would be lower. Sometime soon after, County Commissioners adopted another
disclosure for builders. It was much less likely to alarm buyers because it said nothing
about the base or jet noise. It was copyrighted by the MLS and used as their noise
disclosure for all property transactions, instead of the legal disclosure. The County has
collected inflated taxes on Noise Zone properties for the last two decades. Buyers were
duped, they paid taxes on an overvalued assessment, and now, with the disclosure
restored, they will also lose equity vital to their net worth. For many, this amount is their
entire net worth, and money on which they have depended Will citizens be able to get
their properties reassessed? At least one couple recently tried. After Navy flight paths
shifted, the owners of a waterfront home off the north end of the OLF found they could
not stand the noise. They put their home on the market where it remained for two years,
substantially under county assessed market value. They finally determined to keep it and
developed a plan to leave when the jets flew, whenever possible. They applied for an
adjustment on the tax value of their property and met with the committee. The assessor
actually sneered and laughed when they argued the homes approximately a mile away
are not comps for their home because they are not directly under the jets, as is their
home. They were told they should lower the price on their home $25,000 a month until it
sold, discounting the pain of that loss. They felt angry and violated. What will happen
when expert witnesses in the class action suit against realtors reveal the specific loss for
each property? Will the county lift this tax burden from these people who have suffered
enough? Will they have recourse? Probably not, but time will tell.
2145
(b)(6)
2146
,
Comments: The escalation of noise abuse is frightening. The arrogance of the Navy to
impose the noise and then maneuver around laws, guidelines, and human decency is
unbelievable. The plans for 70 more Growlers read like fiction, but they are real, Navy
plans. Is it not obvious the OLF cannot handle training for this number of planes? The
EIS must consider the inevitable. The following was copied from Citizens Harmed by
Disclosure Deception. The formatting prevents the visuals and links to important
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/navy-plans-70-more-growlers/ Navy Plans 70
More Growlers The Navy wants 70 MORE Growlers BEYOND the 36 currently
requested!!! The escalation of weaponry in our skies has no end. Read the articles below
where the Navy justifies the need for 70 more Growlers, BEYOND the 36 currently under
consideration by Congress. That will bring the total to 205, almost twice the number
based here now. Can you imagine the increase in training time that will show up on each
Thursday Flight Schedule to be endured the following week? The Navy should be
focused on long-range military plans and the execution of them. With their full attention
on military matters, they should not be distracted by how they should police themselves
in relation to their civilian neighbors, especially since they have shown themselves to be
ineffective using the Environmental Impact Study process or responding to citizen
complaints. There is an obvious conflict of interests, where the interests of civilians
trapped under the current noise assault ,with wave after wave still coming, are seen as
an collateral damage. Congress must step in to set limits and ensure funding for civilian
protection. The Navy breaks all noise laws ever devised with the roar of Growlers
screaming overhead, past the point of pain on noise charts and causing extreme health
and emotional damage. Each decision must be an informed decision, made with a full
understanding of 1)what is already happening here and 2) what further escalation in the
air would mean to families on the ground. It is obvious that the Outlying Field at
Coupeville cannot meet the planned defensive needs of this country. Congress must
require the Navy to find training options that do not require the forced sacrifice of health
and well-being of civilians on this huge scale. If plans for an alternative OLF are in
progress, the timeline for relief for this community should be short. We can bear no more.
Read the articles below and the numbers requested. Notice the mention of the Armed
Services Committees and the Appropriation Committees that will make these decisions.
We must contact these committee members NOW. Go to the Stop 36 More Growlers!
page to learn how you can make your voice heard in the time it takes to send an email.
We must go directly to the decision-makers who are not voted into office by those who
benefit from noise abuse. Articles Why the Navy Wants More Growlers (70 more!)
http://news.usni.org/2014/03/12/navy-wants-growlers Why the Navy Really Wants 22
More Growlers (This number of planes immediately requested to be studied by the
current EIS has grown to 36)
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/why-the-navy-really-wants-22-more-fa-18gs/
(b)(6)
2147
,
Comments: Captain Nortier, in a letter presenting the Navy position used in
Congressional offices like Senator Cantwell, said noise disclosure had occurred since
1992. This an insult to people who lives were forever changed because they received no
disclosure of jet noise or a military installation, as required by law. All buyers received
was a form with the words noise disclosure at the top, and notification of significant
noise and airport included in the four sentences provided. Mention was made of a
noise ordinance for builders, but none was provided. Used for buyers, it was obviously
intended to be deceptive, protecting the county and realtors, with no protection provided
to families who desperately needed and deserved the disclosure of the full extent of the
noise and mention of the NASWI. The following was copied from Citizens Harmed by
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/disclosure-statement/2014-disclosure/ 2014
Disclosure (Form 22W) Form 22W, the form required in real estate transactions to
disclose jet noise, was revised in January by the Northwest Multiple Listing Service
(NWMLS) after realtors were advised by the county that they were not meeting disclosure
responsibilities defined by county law. It will now be used in all real estate transactions by
area realtors and escrow agents. The new form adds the legally required information for
buyers and renters to the information for builders that had previously been on the form. If
you bought or rented in the noise zones since 1993, your property may loose value when
you sell, and you may have legal recourse to recover your future loss now. The attorneys
pursuing the class action suit have the resources to determine what the loss will be, and,
through settlement or a successful verdict, provide you with the appropriate amount.
Take a look at the new disclosure and compare it to the form you may have signed to see
what you should have been told, but were not. Look carefully at the top and bottom of the
new Form 22W realtors present to buyers below: Top of the New Form: Island County
Code Section 9.44.050 Disclosure Statement The information highlighted on the new
form below has been required by county law since 1992, but none of it had been included
on the forms previously used by realtors since 1993, according to a Windermere office
owner. You may have noticed the new disclosure does not require an attached map.
After reading this document when signing escrow papers, buyers would need to leave the
escrow office and drive to the county offices to get if. If they took the risk and signed
anyway, they might miss seeing that the home they are buying could be directly under
the jets, and possibly less than a mile from the runway where, at that position, they fly at
almost full thrust, and at 250-350 feet altitude. That would be worse case scenario, but all
noise zone buyers should be able to look at a map to see where their property sits in
relation to both the AULT and OLF runways. There have been 100 property sales in the
98239 noise zone area code the first six months of this year. This draft version of the
disclosure should have been revised to include a map. Take another look to compare the
new disclosure and the reference to the map and the paragraph from the legal 1992
disclosure below. Click to enlarge. Bottom of the New Form: (Island County Code Section
14.01B.100 Disclosure Statement This is the builders information that had been used
alone on the disclosure form for buyers and renters for possibly 21 years. The NWMLS is
in the process of confirming the 1993 date for (b)(6)
that she obtained from an area
realtor and included in a Whidbey New Times article. Click to enlarge This form will serve
as a permanent testament to the disclosure deception. The top shows information buyers
did not get; the bottom shows the confusing information they were given. Now they are
given both, but the map is still not provided. What should buyers and renters have done
when they first noticed the noise was beyond what was in their noise disclosure? Should
they have sought legal recourse immediately, or might an extended statute of limitations
beyond the four year limit apply? When first recognizing the full extent of the noise and
the effect it would have on their lives, many buyers would began to research. If they went
to the Internet, the most recent Island County Noise Disclosure they would find would
have almost exactly the same wording as what they signed. Click to enlarge. They would
not notice it was for builders. They would assume the disclosure they signed was county
law. They would notice the NWMLS copyright at the top of their form, showing it was
produced by attorneys, and assume it was drafted responsibly. They may not have
noticed that maps should have been provided, but were not. Click to enlarge. If a citizen
contacted the Navy about inadequate disclosure, the Navy Liaison would respond with
something like the following statement by current Navy Liaison, Jennifer Meyer: Thank
you for your comments and suggestions. While it is true that others have suggested a
more strongly worded disclosure statement, many others have used the disclosure notice
to investigate further until all their questions were answered prior to purchase. Clearly this
is the ideal circumstance and not all homebuyers avail themselves of this information.
This message would be accompanied by the legal 1992 noise disclosure the Navy
assumed all buyers and renters received. It was called the ordinance. The citizen would
think the ordinance in the message was the ordinance referred to in the form they
signed, not the form itself. Total confusion and self-blame would be the result. If they
contacted someone at the county offices about inadequate disclosure, some would be
told to move back to where they came from. If they contacted Island County
Commissioners, they would be ignored. As time passed, they would become fully aware
that Whidbey Island is primarily a military jet installation support community where civilian
rights are ignored and even criticized They would feel guilty for making the unfortunate
decision to purchase a home under the jets and signing a noise disclosure they did not
understand. How could they understand? It was not intended for them. Trying to adapt, or
moving, would seem the only two choices, and the financial, time/energy, and emotional
cost of a move is too high for most. Hundreds of intelligent, educated, diligent buyers and
renters have probably done this type of research over the last 21 years to try to find out
what went wrong and what their recourse might be. Some were attorneys. The deception
was hidden so completely that no one had uncovered the fact that the disclosure used
was not what was legally required. Should this legal research have been pursued even
more diligently by buyers and renters before they bought? Or, is there a reasonable
expectation that it should have been done by the NWMLS forms committee? Buyers and
renters expect legal disclosure from their realtors. Realtors expect the NWMLS attorneys
to do the legal research. They carry insurance in case they dont. Who will be informed
and protected with this new disclosure? New buyers and renters will not be fully
informed or protected. Noise at their new home may reach 119+. See the Noise Charts.
To compare 100+ decibels disclosed with the possible 119+ reality, on one chart, the
difference would be a comparison between a motorcycle and an air raid siren. That would
be a surprise no one would want. Sellers and leasers will not benefit, either. The new
disclosure will be frightening in itself. But it will alarm their future buyers and renters
enough to warrant thorough investigation of the Growler jet noise on the Internet. In the
past, properties could sit until a buyer came along who did not know about the jets.
2147
Out-of-town buyers, locals who have not spent enough time in the noise zones, and
people too easily tempted by a great deal will no longer be dependable prospects for life
with the jets. The injury done by 21 years of non-disclosure cant be undone with a form.
Damage deserves remedy. Do you want to take Action? If you linked directly into this
page, go to the Overview (home page) for an overview of the disclosure deception.
2147
(b)(6)
2148
,
Comments: The military has plenty of information on the effect of noise annoyance
because it is used as torture. The noise produced by Growler jets is extreme noise
torture. The volume is extreme, the manner and consistency of its infliction has been
extreme, and the injustice of its infliction is extreme. The feelings of fear, anger, and lack
of control are overwhelming. The Navy can perform its function to defend this nation
without torturing citizens. Planning and budgeting would allow the Navy to achieve its
mission without harming civilians. The following was copied from Citizens Harmed by
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/noise-annoyance/ Noise Annoyance The
physical and psychological harm done by the jet noise on Whidbey Island is far greater
than at any other military installation. People who are repeatedly subjected to frightening
noise over which they feel they have no control have more severe physical reactions than
people who choose the same noise experience. The unique circumstances here, created
by the Navy and local real estate and political interests, have, for many, made the noise
here much more difficult to bear. Noise can go far beyond annoying - so much so that it
is routinely used as torture against enemy combatants during wartime and can make an
existing health condition life-threatening. Barry Manilow and Sesame Street music were
used as torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. A heart condition that is worsened
by noise annoyance is more serious than incremental ear damage. Each person
experiences noise annoyance differently. The same jet noise that could be perceived as
enjoyable by one person (the sound of freedom, jets=jobs), could be psychologically
painful and cause stress-induced health issues for another. Many area buyers pay
hundreds and even thousands of dollars more each month for a comparable house
without the jets - if they can afford it, and, if given a choice. Noise annoyance resulting in
stress can come from 1) lack of control, 2) repetition, and 3) feelings toward the source of
the noise. Lack of Control Attendance at a rock concert with a favorite group preforming
is enjoyable. A recording of the same concert, played at full volume when you dont want
to hear it, can be stressful. Police are sent to respond to music complaints routinely.
Many people knowingly bought homes under the jets and feel themselves in control of
their noise environment because they chose to live there. They might see them as an
awesome reminder of the power and tradition of the US Navy and/or as the reason they
were able to buy a better home at a much lower price. Other buyers, unaware of the jets
when they bought and not provided with adequate disclosure, feel helpless. Soon after
buying, they learned that all aspects of their lives are dictated by the Navys choice for
when, how loud, and how low the planes fly. They feel control was denied to them
because they were not informed about the noise before buying, and their frustration
increased when they learned that telling them had been required by law. Of course most
of these people wanted to regain control of their lives. In their efforts to escape the noise,
many complained and/or worked to make changes. They found themselves trapped by
formidable obstacles, contributing even more to their stress. In addition, they were
persecuted by those without adequate understanding and/or compassion. But
subjugation creates motivation and drive. This population will never stop working to free
themselves from the damaging noise, remedy the terrible injustice that was imposed
upon them, regain a normal life, and insure this never happens to anyone again.
Repetition Repetition is unnerving. Even a clock ticking at night can produce stress for
someone who does not want to hear it. The repetition of the Growlers cycling over and
over, hour after hour, day after day and year after year combined with the realization
that there is no escape short of a move can create almost intolerable stress. The
periodic break in the flyovers, producing a glimmer of hope that they are finished,
produces even more stress when they start up again. To escape, many leave the area or
stay inside with ear protection while others have constructed soundproof rooms in their
homes to seek relief. According to a Wikipedia article on noise annoyance: Studies have
shown that neighborhood noise (consisting of noise from neighboring apartments, as well
as noise within ones own apartment or home) can cause significant irritation and noise
stress within people, due to the great deal of time people spend in their residences. This
can result in an increased risk of depression and psychological disorders,[34][35]
migraines, and even emotional stress.[35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise Imagine the distress that results
when you discover that Growler jets are you neighbors, and their unending scream has
invaded your home! Feelings of Fear and Anger Feelings toward the source of the noise
affects stress levels. Both fear and anger produce a fight or flight sequence of physical
changes that can damage health. [26] [27] Fear 1. Admirals Cove is, for all practical
purposes, a crash zone. Plus, most of us know there have been a number of military
plane crashes that have occurred just this year. 2. A 16 ton jet at low altitude dropping
drop down for landing is frightening. Houses were built where there were Navy
recommendations for no housing, dense housing less than a mile from the runway.
Crowds watching an airshow on July 6 in England
(http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/VIDEO-Turkish-F16-Jet-flies-close-crowd/story-21335
374-detail/story.html) were terrified as a Turkish F16 jet roared over at low altitude.
Growler jets routinely fly over noise zone properties at little more than 200 feet higher
than that jet, at noise levels that are probably louder. For any individual concerned about
a crash, each time a plane circles over that low, their intense fear can contribute to a host
of ailments. 3. People are fearful they may never be able to sell their property, and if they
do, theyll have to take a huge loss. Two major law firms have taken on a class action
lawsuit on contingency because they know the new disclosure will cause property values
to go down. 4. There are many health risks, some potentially fatal, especially for those
already at risk with existing health problems. Go to
http://www.citizensofebeysreserve.com for documentation. 5. Families with children who
cant afford to move may be the most fearful of all. Health risks for children are greater
than for adults. They want to play outside, and they are less willing to wear ear
protection. What would be adequate protection? In many locations, they would need ear
protection that was of the same quality worn by military flight deck personnel. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise What would a parent do to keep
ear plugs and head gear on a baby, toddler, or child? Court marshal them? Anger 1. It
staggers the imagination that in America civilians could be subjected to noise this
loud from jets flying this low, and no one is willing to do anything about it. People are mad
about their own pain, but even more, they are mad that people they love are suffering,
too. 2. Youd think there would be laws against this, and there are 5th Amendment,
EPA, OSHA, city, county, state and more. It turns out the Navy is above the law. 3.
Politicians have taken their stand against noise zone complainers, or done nothing, in
order to win votes, win influence, protect the economy, and raise the tax base all at the
expense of so many. Persecution is the norm. 4. Harassment has come from many
2148
sources: the Internet, signage, business boycotts, social ostracism, petitions, T-shirts,
resolutions, letters to the editor, editorials, public taunts. It adds to the anger. 5. People
have been lied to repeatedly by the Navy. The Navy said the Growlers would be quieter,
there was no need for an EIS for them, they would not exceed a 6,120 limit to yearly
operations (and then hit that limit by June, requiring a law suit to get the flights to stop),
crash zones criteria are not currently met at the OLF, DNL noise measurements
adequately inform buyers, the planes less than a mile from the runway fly at 500 feet
altitude, the Navy does not have an easement over Admirals Cove properties, the Navy
has an effective Encroachment Prevention Plan, disclosure has occurred since 1992, etc.
See EIS Deception for more. 6. And of course realtors used a disclosure form that
increased their sales and commissions and hurt their buyers. Then, many defended it.
Then, they changed it, but failed to provide the required map. Now, the legal disclosure
will decrease the net worth of those same buyers because their homes will sell for less.
Conclusion It has been easy for leaders who could do something to stand back, recuse
themselves from people in pain, and discount their complaints. Although the harmful
effects of noise have been scientifically validated, its impacts are primarily cumulative,
like nicotine and cancer, it is almost impossible to prove a direct connection. Health
impacts show up over time and valid one-time event hearing loss would be hard to pin to
the event. The Navy has hid behind outdated DNL annoyance measurements that have
no bearing here. This is the perfect storm for putting any current measurement off the
charts: the noise is too loud, the planes fly too low, the disclosure process was too
deceptive, the myth buyers were told was too useful, leaders have been too seduced by
business as usual, many more Growlers are on the way and of course the health impacts
are too serious. Much that has been done here on Whidbey Island is outright illegal
and/or contrary to the intent of many laws designed to protect this population. And laws
are not even written for abuse at this unimaginable level. Any future measurement of
what has happened will put leaders to shame, unless something is done about it. So lets
take a common sense approach. The noise is dictated by national defense needs which
could easily and dramatically increase at any time. Add to this ambiguity the expansion of
NASWI, the change in demographics and population density, the health impacts, and the
annoyance factors unique to Whidbey Island. The total harm done by the noise
generated by the Growlers is already unlivable, likely to escalate, and must be stopped.
The alterations currently being made to training during the Environmental Impact Study
are not sustainable. Hasnt the limit been reached for what civilians should be forced to
sacrifice to the military? Would our national security be breached if the 1940s OLF
dinosaur was moved, and would the cost really be prohibitive? If 320 million Americans
need the defense provided by the Coupeville OLF, shouldnt each taxpayer pay what
would be a negligible amount? Their lives would not be impacted, but there would be
instant relief for those suffering the most. No jobs would be lost because none exist at the
OLF, and if it was sold, its new use could be a job creator. Failure of the Navy over the
years to ensure disclosure, despite its tremendous influence on island politics, produced
this result. The Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Federal Aviation Administration all profess the importance of disclosure, and produced a
profusion of guidelines, laws, and tools for the Navy. Most of them seem to have never
been used at all. And now, the military is freely using FLCP landing space right above the
homes of citizens where there has been no disclosure for 20 years, despite the intent of
the 5th Amendment to prevent that degree of intrusion. If that is acceptable, then we are
all at risk. Military installations and civilian populations can successfully coexist. Leaders
2148
must rise to initiate the change and decision makers must be assembled to act, so that
instead of the abuse becoming a national embarrassment, this community can be made
whole. It will require compassion, a resetting of priorities and values, respect for the intent
of the law, and a commitment to do the right thing. See Stop 36 More Growlers! to see
what you can do to stop the never-ending escalation of the noise.
2148
(b)(6)
2149
,
Comments: Navy personnel suffer similar impacts on a carrier from Growler noise as do
civilians they fly over, at altitudes as low as 250 feet. The major difference is that flight
crews are provided with protection, trained to use it, and forced to use it. Navy
consultants have presented the noise dangers and made recommendations, many of
which the Navy does not follow, despite knowledge that serious damage will occur.
Instead, the military pays huge amounts to veterans for service connect noise problems.
The Navy should study this callous tendency to harm service men and women and their
citizen neighbors. Someone needs a moral compass. Important questions to ask include
whether DNL measurements are appropriate, why computer measurements differ from
those on the ground, why SEL is rarely are mentioned. The following was copied from
Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception. The formatting prevents the visuals and links
to important documentation from being viewed. Find the complete version at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/noise-volume/ Noise Volume How is noise
measured and disclosed and how does noise effect hearing and general health? Noise
affects people in two ways: 1. Noise volume can Damage the ear causing loss of
hearing, and Cause and exacerbate many health problems including cardiovascular
disease, hypertension, immune toxicity and disease, diabetes, stroke, PTSD, and
cognitive damage and hearing loss in the fetus. 2. Noise annoyance, perceived differently
by each listener, can Produce stress effecting psychological health, Contribute to many
of the physical health problems mentioned above, and Dramatically decrease quality of
life. For more on the detrimental effects of annoyance, see the Noise Annoyance page.
Noise Measurement To understand noise, you must first know how it is measured. Here
is a noise chart taken from the 2005 AICUZ for Naval Air Station Whidbey Island showing
a basic comparison of noise levels. The 120 dBA Threshold of Pain is shown. Click to
enlarge: This is why the noise creates an health crisis ALTITUDE. Click to enlarge. The
Navy is often contacted by people being razed by low-flying jets. This was a response to
a citizen pressing for honest altitude information over homes in the orange circle above
where pilots at the EIS scoping meeting a month later said they fly at 250-350 feet. Click
to enlarge. This low altitude is illegal everywhere. Even the Supreme Court has ruled
takings under 500 feet, but there are no laws for the Navy here. Because of the number
of years they have done this, an easement has been established. No one told the Title
companies who do not reveal this easement in title searches when each new buyer pays
to find this critical information. The following is information on the ruling in Argent vs. US
in 1999 where residents of Admirals Cove sued the Navy for taking their property, a
long, expensive, and devastating battle. The court ruled that the Navy took avigation
easements over their property and otherwise diminished their use and enjoyment of their
property without paying just compensation in violation of the 5th Amendment. Click to
enlarge. They lost because the Navy had been doing it for so long. Click to enlarge. If the
Navy had recorded that easement, it would have been included in all title searches.
Instead of recording it, the Navy now denies it. Click to enlarge. Navy easements were
not disclosed in a title search, jet noise was not disclosed in closing documents, and the
County did not follow Navy recommendations that homes should not be built in crash
zones in the first place. Who benefits when this information is not provided? Island
County collected more in taxes, realtors made more money, both money and influence
were benefits enjoyed by leaders, and the Navy expanded freely. Buyers caught in the
20-year turn-over of property paid the price. What are the noise measurements in the
noise zones? In May of 2013, The Citizens of the Ebeys Reserve contracted with JGL
Acoustics, Inc. to measure noise levels around the OLF Coupeville. Here is an aerial view
of the positions for the Lilly Report, along with the measurements taken. Click to enlarge.
Lets focus on three measurements dB,dBA,and DNL dB Measurement The
measurement that is the most shocking and abrupt is the dB measurement. It is the
highest reading from one second of sound. It is the 134+ burst at Position 1 of the Lilly
Report that would almost be equal to the 137 measurement achieved in a competition for
the loudest stadium noise ever produced. Click to enlarge. The dBA measurement is the
100+ dBA used in the 1992 Island County Noise Disclosure Statement and after 20 year
is now in use again. It measures an average of one second of noise. A noise level of 119
dBA was measured in the 2013 Lilly Report. That measurement is four times louder than
the 100+ disclosed, represented only by that insignificant looking + sign, because noise
double with every 10 dBA increase. DNL Measurement DNL Measurement is based on
studies of high annoyance and presented in the Shultz Curve. It is a ridiculous
measurement for noise zones here, with jets flying directly overhead at low altitudes,
because no study has ever been done to measure the annoyance at these horrifically
high levels. Civilians living here do not bother complaining. Any military entity that has
ignored this population for decades, fought them with lawsuits, provided bad information,
and brings in a never ending stream of squadrons of Growler jets to fly over them is
unlikely to be responsive. Many people who hate 119 decibel level noise and fight it
tirelessly have never called a Navy complaint line. View the Navy Presentation on Noise
Annoyance Noise zones maps with DNL measurements are included in the following
Navy brochure, produced to be used by entities like the NWMLS and individual area
realtors. Be sure to open it and question why buyers and renters have not been given a
copy: NAS Whidbey AICUZ Brochure Notice in the brochure that 85+ levels are
identified. These are not shown on the Noise Zone Maps provided by Island County. The
highest level on those maps is 75+. The Navy brochure recommends there be no
residential use at all in the 65-85 DNL range, but whole neighborhoods like Admirals
Cove were built there and building permits are still being issued for the remaining vacant
lots. DNL measurements are the most confusing measurement provided by the Navy on
the noise zone maps intended for noise disclosure. These measurements are a
calculation of the daynight average sound level. It is a complicated measurement, but to
summarize, it is a calculation based on averages, with nighttime adjustments. In the past,
they were intended to give the Navy a measurement of probable citizen complaints.
Highly disputed in their validity, they now disguise the true volume of the noise and,
therefore, hide the more significant problemshealths impacts and shear panic when
exposed to the real extent of the noise. The DNL metric measurement of choice is the
lowest and it does not inform buyers about the bursts of noise that can be 134+ nor the
noise event of 119+. The cycling roars overhead are much more damaging and
emotionally frightening than the average of what might happen over time. It is like saying
the average wind speed in New Orleans during 2005 was 9 knots, which just happens to
include the wind events of Hurricane Katrina. When the noise level is 119 dBA with 134+
dB bursts, you instinctively cover your ears and run. The noise zone maps realtors use
show the highest DNL measurement at 75+, with that very misleading +sign again
instead of the 85 DNL in the Navy brochure. This measurement would actually reassure a
buyer because most would think DNLs are the high end of what you experience. The
Navy probably realizes that DNL measurements are confusing. It presents the noise as
2149
bearable. It is like telling a citizen that has one foot in a bucket of boiling water and
another in a bucket of ice that the temperature of their feet is bearable. It is not a helpful
measurement for people trying to determine the noise above a home they want to buy.
No one knows what it is, and few understand it even after it is explained. Other Noise
Charts How loud is 119 decibels? The following chart compares noise measured at 119
dBA in Admirals Cove with a thunderclap. During any 24-hour period, the Environmental
Protection Agency reports that 1.5 minutes at 100 dBA or 5 minutes at 95 dBA is
sufficient to cause permanent incremental hearing loss. The Lilly Report indicates that
many people under the jet shadow routinely experience those noise levels in one session
of Growler practice at the OLF. Click to enlarge. The National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) estimates 115 to 120 dBA as the critical noise level at which
human hearing is subject to instantaneous permanent damage effects. Without adequate
hearing protection, any exposure to noise levels above 115 dBA is likely to cause some
degree of permanent hearing threshold shift. The Permissible Noise Level Exposure
Chart below is routinely exceeded in many areas around the OLF: NIOSH Daily
Permissible Noise Level Exposure Hours per day Sound level 8 85dBA 6 86dBA 4 88dBA
3 89dBA 2 90dBA 1.5 92dBA 1 94dBA .5 97dBA .25 or less 100dBA 0 112dBA Find
additional information at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-126/pdfs/98-126.pdf Noise
Volume, Hearing Loss, and Health Problems There is a health emergency on Whidbey
Island. People of all ages, but especially the young and elderly, are experiencing loss of
hearing and a progression toward a variety of ailments that are deadly. Like the effects of
nicotine, the harmful effects are obvious and predictable, but difficult to prove in an
individual case in a court of law because there are too many variables. The burden of
proof is on the plaintiff, and legal action against the Navy would be expensive. For an
overview of the health emergency we face, read: Community Aircraft Noise_A Public
Health Issue Or, view COERs video, The Effects of Airplane Noise on Communities. In
Summary An Environmental Impact Study is not required for anyone who has lived
around the noise and sees its effects on others, especially children. The following video
shows what parents see each time the jets fly: Ball Game Over here come the jets The
bottom line is that the noise volume experienced by people in the noise zones is illegal in
every city, county, and state in the land because of the proven, serious, adverse effects
of the noise. Though the military is above the law and it can produce noise at these
levels, individuals making the decisions to fly military jets above civilian neighborhoods
adjacent to NASWI must determine if they should continue at the same dangerous level.
The ultimate solution will likely be a long overdue Congressional intervention. More
information about noise induced hearing loss can be found at:
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/Pages/noise.aspx More information about the
health effects of noise can be found at: http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/Index.html
2149
(b)(6)
2150
,
Comments: How many people do not submit their stories of suffering because jet noise
was not disclosed to them for each one that does? The Navy should carefully consider
each story below, acknowledge that Growlers and lack of disclosure caused terrible pain,
and fix the problems they had a hand in creating. This suffering must stop. The following
has been copied from the web site, Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception. The
formatting prevents the visuals and links to important documentation from being viewed.
Find the complete version at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/citizens-harmed-stories/ Disclosure Deception:
Stories Neither the Navy nor current County Commissioners have been aware that the
1992 disclosure was not being used in area real estate offices until November. Now that
it has been determined that more complete disclosure is the law, people who were
trapped by not being told about noise will be further harmed when the legal disclosure is
required when they sell. The harm this deception has produced is an embarrassment to
the County, the Navy, and area realtors, and it could have been prevented by County and
Navy officials checking the 1993 disclosure statement against their stated mission to
protect citizens. Why was this not done in 1993, and again in 2002, preventing a
revolving door of surprise, anger, despair, moving, and surprise again, over the past 23
years, masking the true values of homes where the upward trend of noise torture seems
to have no end, and a they were told lie has prevented the discovery of the deception?
Read the stories of people who were deceived, and harmed by the deception. You may
want to tell your story, as well. CITIZENS HARMED BY DISCLOSURE DECEPTION tell
their stories: 1. Spring, 2012 Purchase inadequate disclosure I bought in the Bon
Air/Ledgewood area in Spring 2012. I suppose I signed that disclosure but because it
was so vague, it did not sink into my brain how really bad the jet noise would be.
Neighbors with whom I talked (before purchased) said, oh yeah, the jets come over ever
so often but its nothing.Well, four or five nights a week, for hours on end, beginning
at 10PM and going on into the night until about 1 or 1:30 am. is unbearable. What an
injustice, but geez, we in the U.S. should be used to that by now.lied to about
everything, we are. I came out of a very unexpected marital breakup, an auto accident,
and a move from a rental that I had expected to live in for at least two years; had been
looking for a house to buy for nearly 9 months and found this one that I could afford
(but that needed major work).if I was depressed when I moved after all the emotional
turmoil in my personal life, I have certainly been depressed in the time I have lived and
listened to this horrible, extremely loud jet noise. Diane 2.January 2006 purchase
reassuring comments, inadequate disclosure At the time of our Coupeville home
purchase, we were living in Virginia and had been periodically traveling to Whidbey Island
house-hunting with the intent to relocate to be closer to family. On one such visit in
January 2006 we located the property perfect for us in Admirals Cove, which we visited
three times, none being when jets were flying. Nor did we know anything about the OLF
jets, and there was no mention of such in any of the available information at the property.
Several months later at just days before closing, we were informed of the jet noise
disclosure to be signed. We were taken aback, not sure what it would actually mean and
whether to cancel the purchase. So, from Virginia, we phoned locals, real estate agents,
and the County. They all pretty much all said the same thing: loud but infrequent not
too bad. Trusting those sources we bought and moved in in July 2006. We were horrified
when we first experienced the jets and shocked to learn they flew just a couple hundred
feet directly over our house on their final approach to the runway. We tried to cope with
the noise rather than confront the hard-to-swallow reality that we had been duped. Then,
in 2010 the touch-go sessions began to increase noticeably, and by 2011 and 2012 we
knew the practices had doubled and that the jets were louder. Living here was no longer
bliss with occasional trying times, but had morphed into incessant come-and-go
challenges to maintaining sanity. As a neighbor who rented a nearby property by phone
from South Carolina explained to me why she was moving after just 3 months, I wouldnt
stay here with these JETS if rent was free! The disclosure statement is not only
inadequate, it is a flimflam that clearly prays on the pockets of homebuyers and renters
and discounts the impacts on their lives, and it sidesteps the reality that Navy agendas
are beyond Island County control. Its not okay to say the notice is good enough for some
buyers; it has to work for all. No one should slip through the cracks. Finally, it is important
to note that the notice was only presented to us well after we had paid the airfare, well
after we first visited the property and became committed to it, well after the contract was
mutually accepted, well after we had paid for the inspection, and well after we sold off
investments to meet the obligations expected. That concealment is totally unacceptable
and reprehensible. The notice must not only fully delineate all the impacts and risks, but it
must be profiled to prospective buyers upon their initial and any subsequent visits, and all
purchase contracts should include a signed statement that the buyer has read and
understands the disclosure.(b)(6)
3. 2003 Property Purchased and
Home Built 2002 disclosure My husband and I purchased our high bluff waterfront
property on 2003. It is off of (b)(6)
within Coupeville city limits and in Ebeys
Landing National Historic Reserve ( managed by the National Park system). At that time
high bluff waterfront property in the Coupeville area was at a premium and the prices
were going up quickly. We purchased our property because it was beautiful and serene.
We were the first to build in our private neighborhood that had seven building plats, all
one to two acres. We own 190 feet of waterfront overlooking Penn Cove and see the
lights of Oak Harbor in the distance. There is a curving private road that comes into our
neighborhood from Parker Road with acreage on both sides that can never be built on for
total privacy. We hear no traffic noise from Parker Road. Covenants were already written
up by the developer to protect views and the environment. It was paradise and all of our
retirement savings are invested in our home. We had no idea we were directly under a
flight path. All we knew was that the navy occasionally flew over our area on the way to
Oak Harbor. I dont even remember signing a noise disclosure. I recently found a copy
buried in my title closing documents the 2002 non-disclosure in very tiny print. This
makes me furious. We never would have purchased our property had we seen the noise
contour maps and military warnings. We feel terribly violated. We had no problems until
2011 when the military started ramping up their presence here and the ear splitting
growlers began arriving. All of a sudden we were directly under the touch and go practice
frequently non stop for four hours at a time non stop at tree level. The noise is
horrendous and the vibrations get into the core of your body. The reverberation from the
water even makes it worse. Our lives have become a living hell. We have become
collateral damage for the Navy. We are paying just under $8000 per year in property
taxes. Yet when the practice flights resume from the OLF we will not be able to live in our
house. Its not worth going deaf. We fear a crash in our neighborhood. The vibrations
may compromise our bluff and the emissions from the planes are very toxic. Where are
we supposed to go? It is a nightmare. Even this summer the constant roar of the growlers
2150
from Oak Harbor is unpleasant. The stress of this terrible situation has greatly
compromised my health. I wake up during the night with my heart pounding from anxiety.
Please keep my name anonymous. Individuals that have written letters to the editor have
been threatened with violence. 4. 2010 Purchase 2002 Disclosure, (plus realtor
information) We purchased our home in 2010 after our son moved to Vashon, and our
daughter moved to Useless Bay. We came up to help them move in January of 2010, and
saw that Whidbey might be a home for us, and our family would be together. Back home,
we researched on the Internet, finding two primary homes to consider one in Admirals
Cove, and one with a view of Baby Island. The Admirals Cove home, without knowing
the planes fly directly overhead producing horrific sound, was the obvious choice. It was
much lower in price, which we assumed was due to a mistake the builder made by
putting no windows on the view wall, which we could remedy through a remodel. We
discovered our home had been purchased by an investor at auction at half its value, and
another auction was coming up requiring cash. We made what we thought was a
ridiculously low bid, and the owner accepted it. We celebrated a dream come true! Our
realtor had told us there were jets. We got a glimpse of one from the highway, and with
our road map, determined they could fly nowhere near enough to our home to make a
difference. We travel, and are often camped near airports and railroad tracks. We were
certain the jets were not a problem. If we had been presented with the information in the
1992 Noise Disclosure, we would not have purchased. The Noise Zone Map would have
been attached, showing the obvious problem with the jets flying directly overhead. Other
red flags would have been day and night flights and 100+ decibels. We would have called
both the County and the Navy. Our realtor is a good guy, and I am sure he wasnt trying
to hide anything. But we really needed the information from the legal 1992 disclosure. I
came up to meet the moving van and direct the move in alone, with my husband staying
to behind to paint and make repairs. I remember the first night the jets flew and realized
the mistake we had made. I decided to adjust my attitude, and learn to live with them.
When my husband joined me three weeks later, we both did. The tipping point came with
the Growlers. An awful situation became intolerable. Last summer we decided we had to
move, despite the extreme hardship. It took us two months of full time work to find a lot in
Sandy Hook, doing scores of computer home designs for various lots, shop site
preparation, deal with the county, and stage our home getting it ready to sell. We saw the
window of opportunity with the jets not flying to get our house sold. The sales
representative for the home builders turned out to be a disaster, with all of our plans
based on a build she recommended, but the company could not deliver. Wed have to
find another builder. That disappointment made us stop and think about what we would
be doing to someone purchasing our home. Could we justify passing on the problem? As
we faced the moral dilemma, we also started looking at why anyone should be caught in
the trap of inadequate noise disclosure. Our questions began, and the discovery of
deception resulted in our refusal to pass it on, and the confrontation with a system that
created it and sustains it. The shut up or move taunt that is prevalent on the island hurts
the most. We first got it in the County offices when getting a cost for hooking up water in
Sandy Hook. I asked why the disclosure was not better, and the employee kept telling me
I was not going to loose my hearing. I told him I wasnt talking about loss of hearing, I
was talking about no noise information. He kept coming back to hearing, and finally told
me I should just move back to where I came from. We can afford a move. We are retired
so we have the time. We can stage a house, pack, pay for movers, make adjustments to
a new home, pay realtor fees, and more. Other people cant. Moving away from the jets
2150
would break the budget of most people. They have kids and jobs. It takes months. It
strains relationships. Hearing whiners should move makes me want to defend any
family from being denied the opportunity to choose life without the jets. This deception
has gone on long enough. It has to stop now. (b)(6)
5. 2003 Sale, No
Disclosure We lived in West Seattle, and came up to the island for occasional long
weekends, and fell in love with Coupeville and the surrounding area. We started looking
for a house close to the hospital, close to shopping, private, and after several trips found
what we wanted. At no time did a military jet fly over. We bought the home, got no noise
or building disclosure as required by law. One day, while working in the yard, a jet went
over. How cool, I thought.but its one of ours. I was proud. Then, as the overflights
became a living hell, wearing hearing protectors inside our home. Not being able to work
outside. Our pets in a state of panic when the military jets thunder over. The house
vibrating to the insufferable noise. Sleepless nights because of the horrendous racket
trashing the house at 1:00 A.M. Enough! Enough! (b)(6)
6.
Unspecified disclosure date, 2002 disclosure One of my neighbors was walking by as my
husband and I were out in the yard gardening. He was a very sweet, almost totally deaf
elderly man. We asked him what he thought about the jets. He said he had tried to make
his peace with them. He said he had no reason to complain because he had signed the
disclosure, and was a man of his word. This was an prime example why some people
dont complain. Good character meets deceptive practices. 7. No disclosure A builder
living on the island for some time did careful research to be sure to not build under the
jets. After building, the jet paths moved. 8.No disclosure We bought our lot in 1969 and
designed and build our home in 1971, and we are probably the last of our generation
owning property on the beach. We received no disclosure about noise when we
purchased our property. We were there week-ends at that time and really never knew of
the planes flying. In time we did know, when we were there in middle of the week, and
could not begin to believe the noise, often until after midnight.. . . 9. 1991 Property
Purchase, 2008 Home Build No Disclosure My parents lived in Ledgewood Beach for
about 45 years beginning in the early 1960s. During that time when I visited them there,
Navy jets flew rarely and usually on a Tuesday night. It was quite tolerable. In 1999 I
purchased 4 acres on Parker Road from my parents. There was no disclosure statement
and none of us viewed the Navy jets as a problem. However, when I began building my
home in 2008, things changed dramatically. The Prowlers were being phased out by
Growlers and the number of flights began to increase dramatically. I worked outside on
my large organic garden and in the studio I had built in 2006. I began to have difficulty
hearing after a year or two working outside. I found I had permanent hearing loss and
needed hearing aids. As a retired teacher, it took several years to save up the funds to
purchase decent hearing aids. I understand the Navy takes care of that cost for Navy
personnel. I could not believe that Navy jets were allowed to fly low enough to cause
permanent hearing loss, let alone over schools, hospitals, and sports playfields. I had a
jet fly over my land so low that my normally calm dog flattened herself to the ground and I
could see the pilot. I began to experience sleep loss, anxiety, and felt the incredible
vibration in my body that was transferred by these Growler jets. I felt physically ill as
week after week the Growlers flew from morning until 1:00 a.m . As flights increased, I
could no longer work outside even with heavy hearing protection. I lost my ability to
concentrate on tasks. In my shuttered new and well-insulated home I could not talk on
the phone, hold a conversation, or watch tv. I felt I feel my life has become a nightmare
with these flights. We were told we could call in and issue a complaint to the Navy. One
2150
Navy member told me he and his wife were warned by the Navy not to live in the
Coupeville area and to look at the flight pattern. How is it that the Navy is allowed to
destroy an entire community bit by bit? Businesses and farms are suffering here as well
as residents. These Navy flights are destroying my life. (b)(6)
10. Date of
Purchase Not Included As a widow of a RAF pilot officer, who died from lung cancer,
thought to have been caused by nuclear radiation, and my present husband, who suffers
from the Hodgkins Lymphoma from Agent Orange, I have often had cause to think of the
sacrifice my own family has quietly endured in the name of the most precious thing we
still have, life, liberty, justice and freedom for all. My grandfather was too old to enlist in
the Second Sino-Japanese War, but as a British National in Shanghai with linguist skills,
he did important work translating several languages. For his service, he was water
boarded, tortured, and experienced other atrocities. He died back in England, broken in
spirit. My father, a Scot who lived in Shanghai, although disabled from tuberculosis,
signed on with a volunteer regiment, the Shanghai Fusiliers, and died later from war
related privations in South Africa. The embargo on ships returning to the U.K. ended a
week after he died. He left a widow my mother with a baby girl and a new born. We all
tend to think that our sad experience is the ultimate in sacrifice. I think my family can be
thanked for its service. If we study war, we can see that nothing has changed for any
victim of any past or present war. War means sacrifice. Regretfully it is the price of
freedom. Today, because communication is so immediate and often slips through
uncensored, the reality is that we know first hand that our beautiful men and women are
suffering unbelievable physical losses, and mental pain. Sadly the wheels of relief are
often far from timely, and life is at times, so intolerable it is ended by the soldier. One
thing that is changing, is our understanding of what combat does to everyone. Another
thing that is changing is the technology of war mongering. When I moved to Whidbey I
believed I was coming to a small bucolic island community where sailors and farmers
lived in harmony. My grandmother used to explain to us that you were either a sailor or a
farmer, meaning that either stayed home or traveled. I have read with great interest the
history of Whidbey Island, and the various interlopers who formed the basis of
settlements, as we know them today. It would seem that we are on the verge of allowing
a new interloper, who has crept up on us slowly, and with increasing noise. It would seem
that we do not have freedom, liberty, peace and justice. Some would argue that they do
not have life as they remember it in terms of peace. I now know that Whidbey is not an
entirely harmonious destination. Beautiful as it is, and kind as many folk are, there is a
darker side. Supporting our troops has been the rallying cry of many survivors of past
wars on the Island, (excluding the ones who became post war objectors), black shirted
council member, those not interested in the health, hearing issues of those in the flight
paths. Those who only see loss of income, or who maintain that the only real issue is
falling real estate values. It has been sad to see neighbor estranged from neighbor. Sad
to see signs in Oak Harbor suggesting the Coupeville bare the brunt of the noise. This is
a problem with many levels, and whilst it is trite to name property values, and small
business loss as the main considerations, it is a subject that should be carefully
scrutinised by the Military at its highest level, and sensible alternatives runways for
increasingly noisy jets should be made a priority. I would be uncomfortable promoting
central Whidbey as a tourist destination because of the potential for hearing damage. If
flying at OLF is resumed, I believe it would important that all farming of any livestock in
the noise zone should cease. All horses moved from this area, and all pets kept indoors
during hours of operation. This should impact the three million dollar WAIF facility. All
2150
farm workers and all businesses close to OLF should supply workers with hearing cover,
and be notified of flight schedules. The Little League park, the dog park, should be closed
during hours of flying. The hospital should be preparing itself for a possible major
catastrophe, which very obviously it will not be able to handle. Perhaps a couple of extra
military helicopters should be kept on hand to medi vac patients out to Seattle hospitals.
Finally, how very uncomfortable, and possibly stressful for the pilots who fly those
beautiful planes, to know that Whidbey is so divided. These crews go where they are told,
and do what they are told to do. Every so often an opinion from within the military comes
to light concerning an individuals feelings about noise levels. Once you enlist, you are
obligated to carry out a duty, not to have an opinion that apposes your orders. Someone
needs to listen to these lone brave voices! Some people might believe that this is a
positive way to support troops if they are not able to speak up for themselves without fear
of reprisals. I would therefore appeal to those who have the power to turn this thing
around. Move the planes and the pilots to a safe place. A place that can support the
growing technology. A place where they are not the center of controversy. It would be a
good thing if the military would be seen to restore harmony to the island and the
communities. Respectfully, (b)(6)
11. 1992 Purchase no noise
disclosure When we purchased our property in 1992 from Center Isle Realty (now
Coupeville Windermere) we DID NOT get a noise disclosure. I do remember seeing a
noise map in the CIR office with noise level numbers posted. As an audiologist I do
remember looking at the numbers and knew that 75 is not damaging to your hearing.
Nowhere was the DAY AND NIGHT AVERAGING mentioned and that the decibel levels
that they displayed were not REAL TIME exposure. More importantly what realtor in that
office would have even know what that meantnor do they today. We also rented
property about one mile closer to the OLF field than our present property for
approximately one year. While we heard and saw planes doing their maneuvers quite
often over the rental property the noise was NEVER at the level that it has been in the
past 3 years nor was it as frequent. Should it have been, I know we would never have
purchased the property that we live in now. As a professional in hearing loss, noise
exposure, noise damage, etc. in my 43 years as an Audiologist I have never heard of this
much denial regarding a major public health issue. It is now my opinion that Coupeville
Windemere, Island County and the Navy are all together in selling us houses ,expanding
the tax base of Island County, that are quickly becoming inhabitable. The realtors now do
not wish to tell anyone about the risks of noise exposure, possible effects of jet fuel
emission exposure and the possibility of a crash because it would reduce their bottom
line. It is reprehensible that the owner of Coupeville Windemere would continue to show a
map in their offices with little emphasis on any real facts and also add a paragraph in the
contract that protects and informs no one about the real dangers. Who in his office is an
expert on noise exposure???? Who in his office is an expert on jet fuel emission??? Who
in his office is an expert on the crash zone????(b)(6)
12. 2002 Purchase
No Disclosure We started house hunting on Whidbey Island in 2004 and used 4 different
Real Estate agents from Oak Harbor to Langley including Caldwell Banker, Soundview
Realty, Windermere and ultimately Whidbey View Homes. None of them ever pointed out
the OLF or discussed it with any specificity. We recall driving by it with acquaintences
and asking what it was and being told it was an old WW2 airstrip owned by the Navy and
used at most once or twice a month for a couple of hours. No one ever mentioned
training or the term Touch and Go. With all of our trips to Whidbey, we never saw or
heard any plane land there or parked there. In fact, the only time we ever saw human
2150
movement on that field as we drove or were driven by was when some men were flying
radio controlled model planes on the field. If a Real Estate agent ever mentioned it at all,
it was the same message as we heard from the acquaitences who told us it was an old,
hardly ever used air strip owned by the Navy. We purchased our home off Parker Road in
April, 2007. The closing was via the US postal service as we lived in a Philadelphia
suburb and did not attend any formal closing. We first learned of the existance of written
disclosures in 2013 from COER. We then asked neighbors if they had signed any
disclosure documents, and a few said they had and showed us what they had signed.
Another friend showed us a map with an orange oval where the potential for different
decibel levels of airplane noise might occur. We were never asked to sign or did sign any
such disclosure document. We were never shown a map relating to airplane noise
anywhere on Whidbey Island. We searched our files, including the documents in the
closing materials sent to us, and there are no disclosures other than Sellers Disclosures
and there is nothing in the Sellers Disclosures relating to the OLF. Our Real Estate
broker searched her files and sent me an e-mail saying there was no disclosure relating
to the OLF in her files relating to the sale of the property we now own. In that transaction,
she represented both the Buyer and Seller. Had we seen the 1992 Disclosure document
we would never have purchased our home. My husband worked for HUD and knew what
100 decibels meant. Had he seen any document or been verbally told we would be
subject to noise at that level we would not have purchased our home. I should mention
that we lived as close if not closer to the Willow Grove Naval Air Station for 16 years than
we live to the OLF and never had a complaint. It would have taken the 1992 disclosure
document with reference to 100 decibels to frighten us out of our purchase. For the first
5+ years we lived in our home, what we had been told appeared to be true. We heard
some airport type noise once or twice per month for a couple of hours at most. We were
actually surprised, given that Ault Field is only about 10 miles away, that we experienced
less noise than we experienced from the Willow Grove Naval Air Station. Last year, a low
flying plane broke glass in our home. It now feels like we live in a war zone. 13. 2003
Purchase 2001 Disclosure (form 22w, used since 1993) Form 22w was enclosed in my
closing documents. i never saw it or heard of it prior to signing the closing documents
when i purchased this house. which is my primary (only) residence. no person, paper,
or other entity informed me that supersonic aircraft would be flying at decibel levels in
excess of 125 dba 200 to 300 feet over my home at any time of the day or night. David
Day 14. 2010 Purchase We knew the airplanes flew at the OLF. But we did not know they
would be flying directly overhead at an altitude of about 150 feet. We received NO,
repeat, NO disclosure at all from the listing agent (Freeland, Washington Windermere
Office) or from our off-island Windermere Realtor when we bought in 2010. We would not
have purchased our home if we knew. I already have a hearing loss and tinnitus and
definitely would not have moved anywhere near a location that would make that condition
worse. We came from out-of-state where disclosure of such things is automatic. Since
the State of Washington makes the seller fill out a multi-page questionnaire about all that
is wrong with the house, and since the noise hazard warning is supposed to be disclosed
by law, why isnt the noise hazard disclosed on this form? 15. 2006 Purchase My realtor
said there was some occasional airport noise. I am from Chicago and lived not far
from Midway Airport. So, this was the vision I had when the realtor mentioned airport
noise. Midways commercial airliners flew thousands of feet overhead. I had NO idea,
none whatsoever, that the jets would be flying so close to my house. I thought the jets
would only be flying to the Naval Air Station. I had NO idea the military jets would fly so
2150
close to the ground or that they were landing on a practice field near my house. I am
DIRECTLY in the flight path of the runway. When the planes fly, they fly RIGHT OVER
my house. The first time I ever experienced a flyover, I screamed out, OH MY GOD! I
never knew they flew this close!! It actually felt as if the jet was going to land on my roof.
I shook my head in disgust. I thought to myself, Oh God, if I had known this, I NEVER
would have bought this house!!!! Never in my wildest dreams did I anticipate being so
close to a jet flying overhead. I thought the jets were going to fly thousands of feet
overhead NOT 250 feet!!! I was overwhelmed and became very despondent. My realtor
had made me feel like the flyovers were only a once a month kind of thing. No one ever
told me that jets would be flying past 10:00 p.m. when I am trying to get to sleep. I suffer
from heart disease and I am sure this noise is not good for my heart. Even with all the
windows sealed shut and curtains drawn, it is still too loud to even hold a conversation or
listen to the television when they are flying overhead. This kind of oppression is
outrageous. I once had a friend from New York visiting me and we were sitting on the
deck. Suddenly the flyovers started. She turned to me literally holding her chest and she
gasped in fright, frozen in fear, as the fighter jet approached. She screamed out, ___,!
Look! Oh my God!! It had been so quiet that day, I forgot to warn her of the possibility.
The noise was so excruciatingly loud that my friend covered her ears in pain. She yelled,
___, how do you live with this noise? It is actually painful hurting my ears!!! We had
to quickly run inside, but the noise was still overwhelming. There have been several times
when simply walking to the driveway while a jet is flying overhead causes immense ear
pain. I have never experienced this eardrum-splitting level of volume, even at a rock
concert. I pity the poor children on my block who are innocently riding their bikes and
playing ball on the street while these jets are flying so closely overhead. There are other
safe places the Navy could be doing this practice. They stopped for a year. Where did
they practice then? We cant be their only option. I am a disabled man. I cannot afford to
sell this house. Even if I could (which I doubt), I am an ethical person and in all good
conscience, I dont see how I could sell this house to an unsuspecting buyer. How
deplorable. Who in their right mind would buy a house directly in the flight path of a
military jet? I seriously dont know what I can do. I will probably have to buy a protective
headset like baggage handlers use at the airport when loading luggage. I am so glad I no
longer have a pet. The pain she went through every time a jet flew overhead was so bad
she would start howling. This is NOT right. Thank you for any help you can give us. We
need help in the worse way. I would love to have a couple of those people who are in
favor of OLF come sit on my rear deck while they are flying over. The sound is
frightening. It is so loud as to be almost unbelievable and definitely unbearable for any
normal human being. I used to go to Chicago to watch the Blue Angels fly and their
sound was nowhere as bad as this. 16. Non-disclosure change in flight paths A buyer
purchased a home a half mile from Oak Harbor after moving from under the flight paths
further north. All was well until the Growlers were sent to Whidbey, when the flight paths
changed and the noise again became unbearable. 17. Inadequate Disclosure Oak
Harbor As I have always had a love for aircraft, when we purchased our home, and were
advised that we were in what was called Sound Zone 2, I was excited to be able to see
various aircraft taking off and landing near our home. In the beginning, it seemed the
Naval aircraft departures and arrivals were fairly consistent, and not very obtrusive.
However, it appears that over the past 2-3 years, the frequency of the air traffic has
increased and the flight patterns have changed. More recently, we have experienced
many low level flights directly over our home at about 500 above the house with what
2150
appears to be full power with, or without, after-burners. The noise level is so intense that
your house shakes, and we must cover our ears to protect them from the pain of the
noise. 18. Flight Path Map Not Accurate I currently live on Whidbey Island . . . .north of
Coupeville. I chose this location based on the noise zone map that was provided. I had
lived in the flight path of an airport and knew I didnt want to again. During the past
several years very loud Navy planes have flown directly over my home. In the past I was
able to call and speak with someone who agreed with me they were not supposed to be
flying here, but recently all I get is a message machine that offers to call back but never
does. I have concerns that the Navy will continue to ignore their own regulations and that
an increased level of squadrons could jeopardize my physical and emotional health.
When I have had the misfortune to be outside when a growler has flown overhead, I
found the sound so loud it was painful and I found it necessary to squat down and cover
my ears for relief. 19. 1996 No Noise Disclosure We purchased out home in 1996 direct
from the seller and did not sign the noise notification form. If the Navy did not have use of
the OLF and tried to get it approved would it have any chance at all?No, none due to
environmental, health, and safety issues. Right or wrong, the area surrounding the OLF
has grown too large for the field. The noise due in good part to the number of landings
and the F18s are intolerable. 20. Realtor and Other Untruths Result in Not Buying I came
to Whidbey to purchase a property. I had one staked out in Ledgewood Beach. However,
because their is such a lack of information, untrue information and uncertainty as to the
future noiseI will probably buy in Freeland or Greenbank. I was lied to by my realtor who
told me that there was only two days a month that the Outlying field was used and he
didnt tell me about the new proposal so I feel especially sorry for those who purchased
houses in the past because they were probably lied to also. 21. 2004 Purchase At the
time we purchased our house no mention was made that it lies in the fight path of Navy
jets flying under full thrust with no noise suppression. We have since learned that legally
such notification is required. 1. At well over 100 decibels, the noise level is dangerously
high for humans as well as animals. When we hear the aircraft, we immediately go
indoors and put on noise-canceling headphones. We also bring our pets inside. 2.
Non-domesticated animals with extremely acute hearing must suffer considerably. We
both see psychotherapy clients in our home-based office. 3. The aircraft have become a
significant disturbance, at times making it impossible to conduct our business. We have
had to sit in the lower level of our house, virtually held captive in our own home. Many
times we have found it impossible to focus on anything except the noise. 4. Furthermore,
the possibility of an aircraft engine failure is always on our minds as it may be just a
matter of time until an out-of-control aircraft crashes into our neighborhood or some other
nearby. 5. It is our understanding that property values have already been negatively
affected. This is especially true for those with rental properties. 6. Finally, while driving in
Oak Harbor in late December, 2013, we drove behind a red pickup truck that had the
following professionally printed it: Idiot: Someone who buys a house in the flight path
and then complains about the noise. This controversy has created a hostile environment
and unfortunately supports a growing contention that the US Navy cares little about the
concerns of the citizens it purports to protect. 22. 2002 No Fair Warning My husband
and I purchased our house in Coupeville in 2002. As a matter of fact, we were not given
fair warning about jet noise levels in the area. Our real estate documents provide notice
of some noise from Oak Harbor jets. Our Coupeville home is 10 miles from Oak Harbor.
We were not advised there would be routine touch-downs in our area. Over the years, we
have experienced jet noise loud enough to create reverberations throughout our bodies.
2150
Jets have flown so low over our property that it is possible to see the pilots inside the
cockpits. The noise is excruciatingly loud. My husband already had sever hearing
impairment prior to our move to Coupeville. Now he is at risk of loosing his hearing
altogether. 23. Inadequate Disclosure My father served in the US Navy. He was a
decorated Veteran who recently pass away this last December. He was 89 years old.
Thus, we support the US Navy. However, when we signed the document that affirmed we
had received the notice of the sound invasion from the OLF field we had no idea about
the intense volume we would experience. It is beyond bearable. We, as a family, are
concerned for our health and well-being. We cant be in our home and find peace and
quiet. 24. Increase in Noise I have lived a quarter mile from Coupeville OLF for over
seven years. Prior to that my wife and I visited her parents on Whidbey Island for several
years, and were well aware of the jet noise. There has been a huge increase in the noise
level and duration of flights recently at the OLF. Those who have not experienced military
aircraft at low level and full throttle cannot imagine how disruptive the noise is. Imagine a
rock concert outside your house, running eight hours a day, four days a week, until 1:00
in the morning. Then imagine a noise that is much more obnoxious tan your least favorite
rock music. It is simply insufferable. Carrier Landing Practice is unique in two says: 10 it
one of the loudest human activities on the face of our planet, 2) It must be performed
repeatedly. These two realities make it clear that there are appropriate and inappropriate
places for perform CLP. While reasonable people might disagree about how much buffer
is required between CLP and human habitation, we can all agree that the Outlying Field,
which has zero buffer, is an inappropriate location. 25. Difficulty selling home because of
airplane noise My spouse and I lost a bonafide buyer for our house due to the airplane
noise in Admirals Cove. I am planning to re-list our home in early spring and am very
concerned that we will again have trouble selling and be foreclosed or have to settle for
way less than our house is worth. We are 76 years old and need to make a change
desperately for health and economic reasons. 26. No night-time flight notification and
Incorrect map for purchase of two homes I moved to Whidbey Island in 1997 and bought
a house, at which time I was provided a map of OLF flying noise zones and was told that
such flights would cease on or before 10 am whenever flying. I also bought a studio, with
both properties shown on a map to be outside the noise zones. I have found repeatedly
late night flights, some after midnight, especially when each new commander takes over.
It would seem as though previous agreements regarding noise decibel levels and flying
times are never adhered to. In view of potential damage to our ears and the new Growler
decibel levels and continued failure to adhere to hours of flying, I FULLY SUPPORT ANY
EFFORTS TO CLOSE THE OLF. 27. Inadequate Disclosure 2004 Naturally people from
Oak Harbor want the OLF reopened and used in order to draw a lot of the horrible noise
away from there, making another town miserable, instead. We bought land and built a
house here in 2004 because of the protection that should be afforded by living in a
National Reserve, run in part by the National Parks with a strong emphasis on preserving
the pristine environmental treasure that existed here, prior to the arrival of the
environment destroying Navy Growlers. Unbeknownst to us, the noise disclosure form,
that should have been presented to perspective land and home buyers, had been
rewritten and watered down in 2002 to deceive would be buyers into assuming a huge
hidden risk along with their land/house purchase. The Navy now has the responsibility to
at least offer to buy these affected properties at pre-growler fair market value instead of
forcing people like us to abandon their homes at catastrophic financial loss. Imagine
living in a home where you cant have your children and grandchildren visit for fear of
2150
inflicting permanent hearing loss, or worse, upon them. The OLF near Coupeville should
be closed. The practice touch and goes by the Growlers need to be moved to a more
appropriate area. Youre hearing this from a military veteran of foreign wars who served
in, and still supports the military. the Navy should not be knowingly harming American
citizens and turning the public sentiment against the military, as is happening here on
Whidbey Island. 28. Inadequate Disclosure 2012 Since moving here in May, 2012, I have
had major sleep issues which seem to have been relieved since OLF was closed to jets a
months ago. Prior to moving here, there was modification of jet fly-overs but was told it
was only occasional and nothing to be concerned about; and the two line disclosure in
the settlement papers was known to me only at settlement. There was no mention of
additional louder aircraft being added to the flights flying from the OLF> 29. Changing
noise I am one of the unfortunate homeowners living under the flight path of the OLF.
When I purchased this property, I was shown a map put out by Island County clearly
showing it to be close to the dividing line between 60 decibels and 70 decibels. I drove by
the so-called airport and saw an air-strip. And I thought to myself, How much air traffic
could there be on that? Besides its a few miles away. and 60-70 decibels no problem.
And it wasnt a problem for the first few years. In fact, your pilots probably thought I had a
part-house down here as my friends and I would go outside when they were flying and
wave and dance around laughing like some school. Then about two years ago, things
changed. You started making substantially more flights. A bit of a nuisance, but thinking
is was all for the war effort I tried to ignore it with the expectation the flights would slow
down again in the old schedules as soon as things quieted down over in the
middle-east. Ten the Growlers came. And Gentlemen, Growler doesnt begin to
describe the noise that thing puts out. At first you said we were crazy because everyone
knows the Growler is quieter than the Prowler. You lied. You knew very well once it
banked and caught an onlooker in its exhaust it would blow the poor fellow out of his
boots. Then about two years ago things changed. You started making substantially more
flights. A bit of a nuisance, but thinking it was all for the war effort I tried to ignore it with
the expectation the flights would slow down again to the old schedules as soon as
things quieted down over in the middle-east. Then the Growlers came. And Gentlemen,
Growler doesnt begin to describe the noise that thing puts out. At first you said we were
crazy because everyone knows the Growler is quieter than the Prowler. You lied. You
knew very well once it banked and caught an onlooker in its exhaust it would blow the
poor fellow out of his boots. You also said there would be no change in the flight path.
You lied. Not only did they fly closer to my home, but now turn right about here giving us
the full throttle impact of its most impressive engines; and they are flying substantially
lower than the Prowlers did. When those planes fly, there is no peace, no conversation,
no ignoring them anywhere near them, nothing exists but that noise. There is no sleeping
either; and of course the OLF is intended for nighttime flight practice , something the
information from the County didnt include. Im not a pilot, but its my understanding there
are three primary causes of plane crashes: mechanical malfunction, pilot error, and
suicide. Well ignore the last one as it most likely doesnt apply to our young Navy men
and women. It is also my understanding that there are three primary times of concern
during flight that errors occur: take-off, turning, and landing. Now lets consider our OLF.
These are relative new aircraft being flown by relatively new pilots taking off over the new
bus barn, recycling center, miscellaneous business, turning near the hospital, high
school, middle school, grocery store, restaurant, primary intersection, miscellaneous
housing and businesses, the next turn is in the direct path of Ft Casey State Park,
2150
Keystone Ferry, miscellaneous housing, the last turn and landing are directly over
hundreds of home in the Admiralty Cove area. Looks like a recipe for disaster to me. Yes,
Gentlemen, the time has come to close the OLF, and move the touch-and-go operations
to another much more suitable location. Coupeville definitely isnt it. 30. No disclosure I
believe that Coupeville has outgrown the OLF by allowing so many residents to build
within the crash zone and in the loudest noise zones affected by these jets. Additionally,
this airfield was never intended to be used by jets, rather by quieter airplanes of the
1940s. It is only 5/8 the length needed to safely practice landings. Do we need an
accident to convince the Navy as how ill-advised flights by such powerful jets are in a
residential area? I was never given a disclosure form, and if I had been, I never would
have imagined the extreme noise I would be subjected to as we experienced in the last
two years. It has made my retirement home a nightmare with ramped-up-flights and
Growler jets that create a terrible vibration. My extremely well-built and tightly insulated
home (4 years old) is no match for the kind of noise I am subjected to. I cannot have a
conversation in my home, talk on the phone, or watch TV, even with all the windows and
doors closed. I felt physically ill, agitated, and unable to sleep after weeks of daily and
night flights by these Growlers. This did not stop until weeks after the jets were halted this
year. Additionally, I had to purchase hearing aids 2 years after moving into my home. 31
Incomplete Disclosure When we bought our property (1.5 miles from the landing field),
we were informed that flights happened maybe 2 or 3 times a week and for 2-3 hours
daily. We were relocating from a small town along the BNSF tracks and Interstate 40 a
major trucking route; we thought the flights would be less intrusive that the constant
drone of the freeway and a train every 20 minutes. The noise was less of an
inconvenience until the past two years when the number of flights and the duration of
practice sessions increased. 32. Inadequate Disclosure First let me say I did not get a
disclosure unless you count a paper saying I was near a airport & that was given at final
signing way to late to be back out . My history with airports would have shown a fairly
aggressive local govt. supporting measures to protect the citizens near said airports. Why
would I have reason to think anyone would allow the assault I now am forced to live
under. Two nights ago the planes started flying at 1.30 am. I cant hear the TV or talk on
the phone. I never know when this will start so forget planning a party I used to enjoy
being outside gardening listen to the birds etc. My grandchildren cant play outside here
so they dont come very often. My ears ring almost all the time from being caught outside
with no protection. And then there is my property value my nest egg for my retirement &
more than likely the $$$ to care for me when I can no longer be alone. My retired NAVY
neighbors ( who moved due to the Huge increase in noise ) took a $ 70,000 LOSS when
they recently sold . They call all the time saying get out of there . Not only are they
happier but both have seen health .improvements both in breathing & blood pressure !!.
Unlike them I will not have a large govt,pension I am trapped & angry my taxes are used
against me this way. The only terrorists I see ,hear & smell live right next door The U.S.
Military.
2150
(b)(6)
2151
,
Comments: The Navy is partially responsible for the community conflict in which people
who benefit from noise abuse feel they are doing the Navy a favor and fighting their
cause by harassing anyone who complains about the noise. They have enjoyed
tremendous popularity and the benefits that come with a community and their leaders
that believe their well-being is tied to the freedom of the Navy to abuse at will. The flip
side of this is the reaction to noise zone sufferers. In any large group, many of whom feel
their jobs and their ability to stay in their homes is on the line, there are those who border
on the dangerous, as reflected in their comments below, made to newspaper articles
online. Leaders fan the flames. Commissioner Jill Johnson has publically stated that
interference with the OLF could result in people starving in Oak Harbor. The Navy should
publicly acknowledge there was no jet noise disclosure and remind our community the
legal disclosure was designed to protect the Navy. The following was copied from the
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/harassed-and-robbed/ Internet Harassment
reveals the results of one hours search on the Internet. The premise of most of these
hateful, mean comments is that they were told or they should have known, and they
should shut up or move. Internet Harassment You Were Told Shut up or Move!
Versions of the words they were told are said on the Internet in a variety of ways
whenever articles on jet noise appear. When you find the right home at a great price,
move in, get the surprise of your life when the jets first fly, and hate the noise, there is a
lot of pain. It gets worse when you complain and are then harassed buy people using the
lie as a weapon. Will the lie stop? Will discovery of the truth that there has been no
disclosure of jet noise since 1993 cause this lie to stop? The lie has been revealed, but
comments to the article announcing the law suit show it has not been discarded. The
change in car decals displayed in the community has shown a shift in how the lie is used,
but it also shows a refusal to let go of it completely. The lie will survive as a convenient
way to harasses complainers, discredit and blame them, and ignore their pain. The
harassers seem to believe that the more the complainers are criticized, the safer the OLF
will be. Ironically, it is this conflict and its potential to get dangerous that may pose the
most danger to the OLF. The Navy needs disclosure to prevent remorse and community
discourse. The following is information the Navy collected and distributed as a brochure
as a part of the 2005 AICUZ program: NAS_Whidbey_AICUZ_Brochure The above
shows the kind of disclosure that protects a military installation. It would have been better
to give people even more information than Island County law requires instead of giving
them next to none. People should know enough about jet noise to make a clear choice
about where to live, as the law requires and the Navy recommends. Despite the
existence of humane considerations and county law, Internet harassment thrives. The
following is a list examples gathered from the Internet in less than an hour. Cut and paste
any comment into Google to find the article and all the comments, as well as the names
proudly revealed by the commenters. Internet Examples of Harassment: These folks
signed NOISE. DISCLOSURE. AGREEMENTS. These folks know KNRA/OLF Coupeville
is a national defense installation. These folks know patriots like us WILL answer the call
to serve our troops. To the dirty coupeville hippies comment. IM from coupeville and so
is my family and we support the navy. Not all of us people from coupeville are against it
Dirty Coupeville hippies hate America. I cant wait for the deafening sounds of freedom
to drown out our Anti OLF friend. I bring a copy of the acknowledgement we all signed,
and the map of the noise zones. You should have done your homework as most
homeowners do PRIOR to a purchase or done more to keep the U.S out of wars so that
vital training is not needed 24-7. Youre just one of those that bought cheap because of
the noise zone and are expecting to pad your pockets in the near future by selling high.
*****hears Justin Timberlakes Cry Me A River playing in the background******** Military
children live with that noise most of their lives, none of them are deaf. This is a group of
people who KNOWIngly bought homes here. And expect the whole island change for
them Mac is trying to reach 5000 signatures. If you havent signed his Save the OLF
petition please make it to Hilltop Texaco (in Oak Harbor) by noon tomorrow (Friday) OR
you can find it at Squadron Spirit on Ault Field until 4 pm on Wednesday, October 16th.
Take your friends and family! The more the merrier! CLEARLY all these people had to
sign the same paperwork that I have signed (on 2 separate occasions) upon buying their
house in this area that states THIS PROPERTY IS WITH THE NAVYS FLIGHT
PATTERN, THIS IS A NON-NOISE ORDINANCE ZONE!! So anyone building and
buying knew that the Jets were there along with their noise. When house hunting in the
90s for renting and buying the noise ordinance was in the agreements and disclosures. It
was just plain foolish for anyone to build a house that close to the OLF and expect not to
be affected. Dont like airplane noise? Stay away from airfields! Well if its the OLD
FOLKS WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT GOING DEAF??? DONT they know being
deaf IS A GIVEN IF YOUR AN ELDERLY PERSON,,,?? Didnt they sigh something
before they moved into the houses knowing that there will be planes flying around that
area?? you know we came to whidbey56 years ago , the navy was there already.if you
dont like the noise leave, we are use to it, so what the planes practis, it is the sound of
freedom, dont forget it. these people need to move back to california if they dont like it.
Re such developers (they choose to build near bases for the $$$ as people wish to live
close to their jobs). Why then, are the buyers surprised when they hear jet noises? Also
re: developers (and dumb buyers) if one chooses to build their home BELOW sea level
(eg Louisiana) they should not expect other tax payers to bear the burden of rebuilding
the dikes holding the sea back. Ditto cliffs near the ocean (Malibu) the home will,
sooner or later, slide DOWNHILL (duh). To those people who are complaining. When did
you buy your house by OLF. Before or after the field was there? If the field was there
before you then you have no complaint Funny how when the military tries to establish
bases away from populated areas, the economy they create attracts people, who then
complain about the very reason there is an economy where they moved to. Kinda like
ticks bad mouthing the dog. Count your blessings, and if you dont like the noise There
are always alternatives Why dont you just move !!! I got a solution MOVE!!! Secondly, as
I have stated before (and as I have seen in many comments previously), those opposed
to the noise have moved here obviously not realizing the noise that the thrust of these
jets produce. How is that the Navys fault that these people did not do their research
before buying their dream retirement home on nice, quiet Whidbey Island? I am reminded
of the story of Howling Acres wolf sanctuary in S. Oregon that faced a court ordered
shut down notice because of complaints of noise from the wolves from a new neighbor
that recently purchased a plot of land next to theirs. Even though the sanctuary finally
won the battle, it cost them dearly. (and, no. Before you ask, I am an Whidbey resident
of MANY years, and moved here as a young teen from Bothell so dont even go there!).
National security trumps the convenience factor of people who mainly moved into the
2151
OLF area AFTER it was built and placed into operation. The OLF has been here for quit
some time. These people chose to move or live here. This is unreal to me. That noise is
SO the sound of freedom and some of you complain about that. Seriously unreal and
embarrasing that you and I live in the same place. This makes me sick where the hell do
they think they moved too? I love that field They knew it was there when they chose that
location to live Im sorry, but the OLF was built long before most of the homes in the area.
You cant move into a place then demand they change their ways to suit you. I grew up at
the end of a major International Airport and Air Force Base, as well as being a resident of
Langley, you occasionally get the noise from Paine Field. There are many more pressing
matters to concern oneself with than jet noise. You cant move into a place then demand
they change their ways to suit you Tom? That quote totally belongs in noise-ordinanced
Langley Dont give a d@mn when you arrive, would like to know when you will move. I
was born here 60 plus yrs ago and dont mind the fly boys at all. The Everett Herald ran a
story a couple years ago where she bragged about buying her farm, near the airfield,
without ever even seeing it (apparently despite the noise disclosure residents near the
field are required to sign before renting or buying). In other words, she signed the
disclosure saying she was ok with the noise of training operations, then turned around
and joined a lawsuit to restrict the Navys training operations. Got news for you, that
quality of life hasnt existed on Whidbey Island since 1942. Unless youve lived in your
home since before then you have no real right to complain. People who put themselves
into a situation like this are the worst kind of NIMBYs. Only the ignorant moves next to a
Military base and its outlying fields and then starts complaining about noise. Coupeville is
nice but this is like building a house next train tracks and then asking the train to move.
Or next to SeaTac and asking it to shutdown. They do have to train somewhere. Perhaps
Coupeville residents can pay to have another field bought or built elsewhere. Next time
you looking for a quiet place to be try looking at a map first. Let the whiners then figure
out what to do when businesses close and Whidbey goes into decline. The loss of jobs
on base, loss of jobs serving people and their families assigned to the base, loss of sales
due to less consumers after they leave the base would cripple the Island. Maybe move
the base to Detroit! Oh, give me a break! The Navy has been using that bounce field for
decades, and I guarantee you there is not one plaintiff who was there before it. My word
to them: you came to the neighborhood, deal with it. Homeowners, move the heck away
from there if the noise is a problem. That noise is part of the sound of liberty. All people
who purchase home in the AICUZ noise zone surrounding NAS Whidbey and the NOLF
at Coupeville are required to sign a noise zone disclosure statement that they are buying
a home in a AICUZ noise zone. So, if you know FOR SURE that a business is pro-OLF
please let me know. I will post a list to help guide us to supporting those that support the
OLF. I will not, however, post anything showing which businesses are believed to be
anti-OLF This is a sad case of buyers remorse and irresponsible people that want the
economy to suffer so they can gain financially. They build their house next to a Navy
base and didnt realize the Navy base had airplanes. So, now it is the Navys fault. I
guess in the purchase paper, there was no mention of the Navy base next to their house
and they were too stupid to notice it. Get a lawyer. He needs your money. Lots of
out-of-work lawyers around who will take your money. The Navy base isnt going
anywhere. The Naval Air Base opened in 1942. If you are not smart enough to realize
planes take off from an airport and that planes are noisy, well there isnt much more that
society can do for you. This isnt a airport that should feel the need to cater to its
customers. Their preparing to defend our country get over it or move Easy, planes get
2151
bigger every year. The noise will go up, dont be stupid enough to live next to an airport.
Why risk the chance of loud noises if you cant handle it. There are plenty of places to live
in America. Your not getting any sympathy from me, these people are preparing to
defend this country Yes and the train whistle is to loud, and I have to wait in traffic to
long, and the Boeing test flights over my house are too loud. That sound you are
complaining about is the sound that helps to keep this country free and allows you the
right to complain. There is a distinct difference between complaining and whining I lived
in Oak Harbor off Torpedo Road for a number of years. When I bought the house in 1976
the real estate agent informed me that I would be in the flight path of jets and other Naval
aircraft. I had the choice then to either walk away or buy the house I bought the house.
OLF Coupeville has been used as a touch and go field since the 1940s Im sure that
when folks bought their land/home in that area they were made aware of the goings-on.
On another noise issue fog horns I worked at a facility just off a major shipping lane
on Georgia Strait where the fog horn was required to be activated whenever the visibility
dropped below 1/4 of a mile we fielded countless calls of individuals complaiing of the
fog horn even though the facility had been there for over 50 yearsand it always seemed
to be the johnny-come-lately that raised the biggest fusssimilar to folks moving in next
to a farm and then complaining about the manure smell GaleYou realize this person
has an agenda that they will benefit fromLike a realtor for exampleMaybe just a
home owner looking to increase his asking price in the futurefor a couple of many
examples. Home owner associations use this tactic as well.I dont even live there and
dont follow this story at all. But its plain as day in regards to a hidden agenda Pretty
obvious the long term residents and community leaders are fine with the sounds that
have been going on for decades. The new outsiders who have moved in are the one
causing all the uproar, as usual. The move to the country for the good life, and bring their
crap with them To the supporters of this absurd idea to close OLF; its a Naval airfield,
you moved there, you knew the consequences of the jet noise, you should either move or
get used to it and be thankful it represents freedom where our fine men and women can
train to protect and serve their fellow Americans The only picture that we are getting is
one of a few very selfish vocal people who knew what they were getting into when they
signed a disclosure statement when they bought property here. If you were unaware of
the noise that has been here since August of 1967 and bought property here anyway you
were either taken by the local real estate agents or just plain ignorant. This is not a new
issue, if you have lived here for any length of time you would know that. Every few years
we see a group like yours pop up making the same claims that were made years
agonothing new herejust a new cast of characters that think the sun revolves around
them and them only. You are quite the pathetic creature you are. You knowingly signed a
disclosure statement that said you bought a home in an area that many would consider to
be unliveable and now you want us to believe you are making this an issue because of
some greater need and where the military is running over the populace with actions and
inactions that is causing poor water quality, poor air quality, and poor quality of life.
What about your own actions? Where does THAT fit into this? What about YOUR
decision to move here knowing that you are buying a home in an area that your
disclosure statement stated was considered by many to be unliveable? You take NO
personal responsibility so now you are blaming This type of thinking for your problems?
Yes Robert, the problem lies with you, not the military, not Whidbey Island and not the
citizens that are opposed to your thinkingYOU are the problem, not us. You ignored
your very well written disclosure statement and now you want everyone else to pay. That
2151
is the true meaning of pathetic You have no agreement with the Navy, you have a
disclosure statement that stated the property you purchased was considered by many to
be inliveable due to the noise. What degree of unliveable do you not understand? You
knew this before you purchased your property and purchased it anyway and now you
want to change the world to fix your problem. You are a perfect example of people not
being responsible for their own actions. The property owners of central Whidbey should
mitigate their perceived health and safety hazards themselves. They should not just
move and pass them on, they should be required to fix them, then MOVE. I am sure if
you are required to fix this perceived nuisance it will not be that big of a problem, and the
Jets will get a lot quieter. Unless residents bought their property before 21 Sep 1942 (the
date the base was commissioned), wouldnt you expect air noise from a naval air station?
Why did you choose to buy property there and not expect any noise? The problem is,
you believed the people you bought from and did not read or full understand the
notification in the closing documents. That is your problem, now go fix it. Blow some
insulation in the attic, thats what I did.. 400 bucks and a couple hours time make a huge
difference. Home depot has the machine and the glass. The people who have chosen to
live near that jet airport made a choice. It was THEIR choice, and nobody forced them to
do so. Now, I suggest people sound-proof their homes, just as John has suggested
above. Should anyone reasonably expect that, as time moves forward, the noise levels
near near a jet airfield are going to decrease? Thats foolish thinking Your last paragraph
sums it all up ! What did they think they were moving next to , a half way house for
recovering mimes ? Duhhhhhhhhhhh Why should any disclosure need to be made
to someone buying property near any of the airfields? They are big as life, visible to the
public, and in the case of airfields in Island County, there are maps and other information
on the county public website. Is the public so lame they cannot be expected to do their
own due diligence? Some days people seem to argue that were over regulated, other
days that we dont regulate enough. Do we coddle everything now? Disclose! A giant bat
might bite you and give you rabies! Disclose! A giant slide might happen and take your
house! Disclose! A wild moose might start living in your field and try to mate with your
cow! Disclose! There are often 3 hour ferry lines! Disclose! The beaches arent all public!
Disclose! Deer run onto the highway every day/night! Disclose! Cell service doesnt work
everywhere here! Well I think you get the picture. What home owners are blaming
themselves? NONE.. please. Grow up, people. The Noise was NEVER a SECRET, nor
were the flight paths. Take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Whidbey News Times Letters
(Click to enlarge) FREE 18x24 yard signs courtesy of Mac McDowell. Only 1 per person
due to limited quantity. You can pick yours up at Squadron Spirit Custom Apparel & Gifts.
Reminder: If you havent had a chance to sign one, or both, of the two support petitions
(you can sign both since they arent the same), please check out any of these locations:
In person: Hilltop Texaco on Midway, En Vogue Beauty Salon, Diamond Rentals,
Squadron Spirit, Island Lock & Key, Midway Tire & Muffler, Midway Florist, North End
Fitness & Tradewinds Insurance Online: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-olf/
Health and welfare.. we are doing it for the children.. says the same people who are
ardently pro-abortion leftists. They only care about their own spoiled kids when their
selfish interests and schemes are threatened. Shut down the base and you can shut
down probably 70% of the business on the island until very wealthy investors come
along, snatch up all the land and turn it into an extension of Seattle complete with a
bridge to Camano Is. Sure all you barn part people would love it with the island covered
with mcmansions and self absorbed limousine liberals. Of course they will want an airport
2151
for their jets, and more harbors for their yachts. Sorry. The island happens to be in rather
strategic location and always will be. There needs to be a base here now and in the
future and you knew full well either growing up here or when you moved here that there
was military on the island. I know it is tough for you utopians to grasp that there are evil
and scheming people out there who might someday want to do your country harm, no
matter how green, leftist, friendly and peace loving you may make it look, (which may
only serve to entice them more I might add) someone or a group will take that as an offer
to exploit the situation. NIMBY is incredibly selfish and nearly always comes from the
same bunch of hippy baby boomers or wannabes being their kids or grand kids. Got
news for you, Utopia is not a place on earth. The jets are staying, I suggest you move
over to the western end of the Peninsula if you want to be away from it all but they
probably dont want your kind there either. You guys are a riot! You should take your
show on the road! Whiny little turds of the far left set. Coming to a comedy club near you!
SEMPER FI! Merry Christmas! GO NAVY!!! Sorry if I offended anyone with Christmas.
Wait, No Im not You all make a lot of noise, thats for certain but my bet is that the
noise you make is more annoying to the majority of Island County residents than the
Prowlers and Growlers ever have been or ever will be. Keep making all that annoying
noise and what do you expect Islanders to do? You can bank on them doing the opposite
of what you want them to do: ignoring you like pesky little gnats at a summer evening
barbeque because the barbeque and summer evening are too enjoyable to waste time
swatting at pests. Garrett Newkirk the option was for you to buy a house that wasnt
under the flight path. I know I had to sign a document saying I knew of the noise before
moving into a place that was under the flight path. That field has been there for many,
many more years than most on the island. Own up to your OWN mistakes. Ohand
when those squadrons DO move to China Lake or Yakima, kiss the economy of the
Island goodbye. You will have exactly what you deserve.nothing. Only an idiot would
CHOOSE to live somewhere that is dangerous. Ken Pickard CHOOSE to live here. you
figger out the rest. Commissioner Johnson DOES speak for the 99% of County Citizens
whose jobs, businesses and property value are tied to the Countys largest employer
based on a 2004 state study, the base accounts for 88% of the Countys economic
activity. Responsible politicians from any other county would absolutely provide this
support.Commissioner Johnson DOES NOT speak for the 1% who have been trying to
close NAS Whidbey since the 80s when the former COER group, WISE, actually
asked the 1991 BRAC commission to close Whidbey. COER is anti-military as evidenced
by their leadership comments including the infamous jackboot remark in a previous
WNT article where they were, again, trying to intimidate County politicians. Moreover,
most are very well educated but apparently have not mastered reading their disclosure
form like we have. COER is a very, very small group, with a paltry 72 facebook likes, who
are using aggressive tactics to inflate their small numbers we, the 99%, stand fully by
Commissioner Johnson.County citizens need to decide do they support the 1%
anti-military group who does not care about military training or their neighbors
job/business/property value or the 99%? Its just that simple.Maybe it needs to be written
out in crayons so the idiots can understand it, with pictures of jets flying over a house I
think that this whole debate is utterly ridiculous! My understanding is when you buy a
home/land on Whidbey Is. you are fully aware of the fact you will be exposed to jet noise
from the Navy jets. I personally find comfort in listening to these brave men and women
flying over head to further their flying experience and training. True, some have been loud
enough, I had to wonder if I might be having company for supper, but it does not bother
2151
me at all. For the person of persons claiming the jet noise has made them develop
PTSD You should be ashamed of yourselfthat is sad and pathetic, especially when I
know people who have PTSD and it was not caused from planes flying over. For the
people I have heard shining a bright light into the cockpit of one of these jets you
should be charged with attempted murder! Youd better hope you dont blind them and
they crash killing themselves and others with children! How cruel and stupid! Number
one, they were here before most of us were and number two, they are here doing what
they do to protect us all! How much easier would it be for the people who just dont like
the noise to leave opposed to closing down an entire Navy base and putting a lot of
people out of a job! You all should be saluting them when they fly over, not b*tch*ng
about it! 1) COER President Has No Right to Cry Victim Jan 31 8 am Letter Offending
Comment: Monson is an idiot, plain and simple. A greedy, self centered, LYING idiot. 2)
Sorry You Didnt Read the Fine Print Jan 21 Letter Offending Comment: Garrett Newkirk
Once again, you never held a real job, paid taxes or supported yourself. Is that it,
Garrett? Youre such a miserable failure so youre jealous of Pat for being in the military?
Jealous of all of us who work for a living, supporting your lazy kiester? Ladies and
gentleman, I think Ive hit on the key. Garretts just mad because we support him. Get a
job Garrett. 3) Jets Too Noisy for West Beach Road Jan 21 Letter Offending Comment:
That hatred inside Newkirk is burst [sic] one day..Hopefully he wont act upon his
wishes of destroying the base. 4) Story: Citizens of Ebeys Reserve Goes After Growlers
Jan 30 Was Pickard on his precious boat in San Fran when he cried for the article?
Luckily for the majority, Monson and his rag tag crew of ill informed liars dont dictate
military movements, nor are they capable of even beginning to understand them. They
have lowered themselves to claiming the military is an industry full of self entitled welfare
cases. I look forward to their next un-American statements.. Ive noticed none of the
COER faithful have been here to defend this tripe of theirs Even Newkirk. My opinion is
that the COER wants to turn Whidbey into one giant gated community with a ready made
airport. Get rid of the base, get rid of the riff raff (us) that work here, because of the
baseproperty values skyrocket, they suck up the land on the cheap CHA-CHING!
Oh.. that riff raff will include you, Garrett Newkirk. After they get what they want, they will
have no further use for you. See how far your 1909 tale gets you with them as they
invent reasons to sue you as they have the base. : Sell your property and escort
yourself and your hatred for the U.S. Navy off the Island and never come back.. . Notice
COER members cant put any kind of picture with there profile? They want to be heard
but not be seen, of course mine is of our Two Puppies, but if you want a real one, Ill post
it. You see thats what a leftist progressive liberal (aka communist) does when confronted
with the truth, They Hide, and attack from that hiding place nothing they say is steeped
in fact.they may even say I heard it on the internet so it must be true? COER is
starting to sound like they too subscribe to Sharia Law, are we sure there isnt a muslim
brotherhood component there? It does make sense that many call COER terrorists, at
the least it appears they may be aspiring communists, or better yet, just a bunch of Rich,
Self-Indulgent Brats Spoiled from Childhood until Now, used to getting there way and
throwing little brat tantrums Mr. .With much hesitation I believe I need to respond to
your comment they may be aspiring communist[s]. At first this seemed a little over the
top, but after a little research it appears your comment may have some potential for
concern. Several folks associated with the COER group are said to have spent a fair
amount of time in the Vancouver, BC. area within the last several years. The reason I
mention this is that there a known large population of former mainland Chinese who now
2151
reside in and around Vancouver, BC. Our defense posture appears to have changed
towards the western Pacific area in the last few years illustrated locally by the apparent
force build up of NAS Whidbey assets. I do not make this comment to start a which hunt.
I just followed up on a statement that at first glance appeared to be a little over the top as
I said. With the filing of this lawsuit COER has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that
they are a bunch of commie / terrorist supporters. That F1!@#$%^ Monson is tool!!!
I thought about calling COER and their followers stupid but realized that would be an
insult to stupid people. What falsehood are you accusing COER of, Mr. Strang? Ann
Adams Alert, Alert coer troll in the house!!! C.O.E.R = Cant Own Everything
Retreads!!!! Reaction to the Truth shows comments on the Internet to a newspaper
article about the class action lawsuit. The truth is that the law was not followed, and two
law firms are willing to take on the tremendous cost of a class action law suit based on
that fact. Other articles, including statements from the Prosecutors Office and County
Commissioners, presented the same conclusion to the community. The comments
showed that a lot of people are unable to process the truth, or they choose to ignore it.
Desperate for a target, they assume that COER (Citizens of the Ebeys Reserve) must
be at the bottom of this, when, in fact, COERs mission has remained constant closing
the OLF. Some COER members, like most property owners in the noise zone, will
probably join the lawsuit to recover a portion of their loss, but disclosure deception is not
their focus. Below is the list of comments that followed the Whidbey New Times article
that realtors were being sued because they did not disclose jet noise as required by law,
and as a result, property values are likely to go down. Even after reading the article,
almost all of the commenters failed to grasp the issue. It appears most are trying to show
support for the Navy, not recognizing this is not action against the Navy. They want to
blame COER of course, even though COER is not involved. They do not track the fact
that buyers were told nothing about jet noise, nor do they recognize that no one in this
group is in any way qualified to criticize the noise disclosure law written in 1992 to protect
NASWI. They even suggest that not following it was OK. No one gets it this not only
hurt those pesky complainers; this hurts the Navy. The attention of these commenters is
too riveted on scoring points with other OLF supporters to notice they have lost all
reason. They think any attack on the community in the noise zones can contribute to
winning the battle to save the OLF, NASWI, and the economy. This would be
understandable if they were all immature junior high or high school students who fail to
understand the issue, but most of them identify their jobs and they are not. This sampling
reveals something about the community at large - many OLF supporters may refuse to
ever let go of the lie, they were told. Realtors have created a battle cry that will be hard
to silence and conflict within a community that may never heal. Here are the comments
representing less than two days: Really? Are the potential home owners so stupid that
they dont investigate the areas and surrounding counties or towns as to what they have
to offer? I mean its hard to kind of miss that there is a Navy Air station in the biggest
town on the island. Oak Harbor to my knowledge by living on this island for over a year
that has the most stores, aka where people would get groceries,etc.. Duh. Jets equal
noise. If you dont like it then use your brain and not buy a house here and go live maybe
further on the south part of the island or mainland. Support your military, people. I was
appalled to hear of the initial law suit these idiots filed against the Whidbey NAS. Leave
our military alone. That law suit should have never been active. My husband and his
fellow service men and women already make the sacrifices to keep us safe. It just feels
unpatriotic that those people have the nerve to even think of sueing the Navy. Jason
2151
Joiner, government affairs director for the Whidbey Island Association of Realtors, if you
need witnesses on behalf of the Realtors that the noise disclosure was sufficient, I will
gladly volunteer. Just stopped in here to see where the anit-military Vs Patriots were
standing on this law suit against NAS Whidbey Is. Hmmm so the anit-military lost their
case and are going after the brokerages. Youre going to lose again. I love the sound of
jet noise with my hot coffee The coffee is too hot, and the jets are too loud. Awesome,
appropriate, accurate. The group isnt worthy of using Colonel Ebeys name. He would,
no doubt, be disgusted by them. LOL! So, these people want to sue because they claim
they were not sufficiently informed, but they also want to be able to deny sufficient
information to prospective buyers and renters when THEY sell or rent? How blatantly
hypocritical of them! On COERs website they are soliciting members to pay up to
$2,500 each I am sure this will be used to pay the lawyers all intended to shove 30K
citizens into unemployment and poverty. Tragically unpatriotic, dishonorable and
shameless? Absolutely. COER is really making friends on the island these days. what,
with the upside down flag at the protest, the money stamping saying move to china lake
and military service = welfare and now this law suit. then again, what is a retired lawyer to
do? the BASE has been here since like 1942. They are using it as an excuse to SUE b/c
they couldnt win against the NAVY which to me is unpatriotic if you are trying to SUE a
military establishment. I am typing this right now at 10:30PM as I am hearing JETS fly
over head RIGHT now. Does it bother me? NO. B/c I LIVE on a Naval Air Station. I knew
that coming in to this. All I want is for people to stop trying to be anti-military and when
they lose, to be anti-omg i made mistake so lets sue the next closest possible person I
can win against. Its STUPID. XD also the new jet that people are complaining about, the
new Growler, is ACTUALLY quieter than the older jets they have. **edit* If it was just
about the noise, then WHY go after the Navy first?**** People these days like to sue
whomever and whatever over their stupid not thought out through mistakes! Good
GRIEFyou move within so much distance of a Naval Air Station and then want to sue
over the noise??? Good Lord heres a suggestion MOVE!!! This is not unlike the
lawsuit of Hey, the McDonalds coffee is HOT the warning label is not sufficient. And
we wonder why America does not produce that much anymore. America had 20 lawyers
per engineer Japan had 2 engineers per lawyer. Hopefully, those numbers have
improved. 3 interesting points: 1) Many areas/bases have no disclosure so is some
form of disclosure better than none? I believe a court would agree with that. 2) Aviation
law avigation rights are acquired after 6 years Navy has been flying Jet FCLP since
1967. 3) Aviation law plaintiff to show that (a) the volume/noise of the operations have
increased substantially AND (b) this change has, in fact, lowered property values.
Regardless of any notification flaw. It is interesting to note that COER is willing to sue
anyone Navy, Realtors, County Makes you wonder if they should keep the C
(citizen) in their title. Maybe change to LOER Litigants of the other Ebey Reserve.
[Since the passage of the Noise Disclosure Ordinance, noise levels have risen
substantially] Not true, OLF flight ops have DECREASE from 20K+ (pre-2005) to 5.7K
(post-2005). Additionally, the Growler is less noiser than the Prowler based on averaged
dBs. Hmmm, I live under the flight path at NAS, I didnt get a letter. Should my feelings be
hurt? I wonder what properly informed means! Sniff, sniff, Terresa ;0)- Means, they
showed up wearing clothes. Let the buyer beware. Its the home owners own fault for not
doing their due diligence before purchasing the home. [No one expected the Growler to
be so loud, it really is so much louder than the EA-6B] Actually, its not average dBs for
the 3 operations is less than the Prowler. Moreover, Navy is flying much less 20K+
2151
ops/year (pre-2005) vs. 5.7K (post-2005). The frequency of the Growler is lower which
can resonate with structures more but the higher frequency Prowler has more issues on
the physiology spectrum. Whidbey Island, humm. Isnt that where the Navial AIR
STATION is located? What a waste of energy, money and time. If you dont like the
noise, Move! The south end, maybe? yea, we have dealing with it since I was 2. Get over
itthe only thing that I dont like is the when they dumb toxins when they bankthats a
little scary. Yeah, I hear the Liberals live at the south end of the Island. Stupid is as
Stupid does. Cant fix stupid. I wonder if they wrote the disclosure in crayons with pictures
of airplanes the idiots could better understand they live in a military air station area. On
the slim chance that they were not informed it doesnt take a rocket scientist to read the
6 sign that everyone sees.that states OLF, stupid people Homeowners within the
county-designated Noise Zone who want to sell or rent their property are now being
required to give each prospective tenant and purchaser the new, longer noise disclosure
form. . They started it!! They are complaining about the noise and want to move
because its destroying their lives, complaining that they werent informed properly about
the amount of noise but they want to be a little more subtle about it in the disclosure to
potential buyers? Uhmmm??? Its not THAT loud and I only lived there for 2 years.
Omg! Really? So they couldnt win their lawsuit against the government so go after
Realtors? This is ridiculous! So MOVE. As a Whidbey resident I can assure you that the
majority of folks on this island not only want the Navy here but will fight you tooth and nail
to KEEP them here. COERs presentations on this island usually yield an audience of
under 20 souls. Economics as they are, Whidbey needs their presence and resents your
continued crap. MOVE. Here here!!! Another viewpoint to consider. This may just be a
where the rubber meets the road moment that is long over due. Will a piece of paper
even if not well written be found sufficient to relieve an intelligent individual from personal
responsibility of making an important decision based on the physical environment that
they find themselves in? Did they, like MONSON THE LIAR, sign the disclosure? YEP..
What a waste of time and money. Signs shows the how a definition for the word idiot on
the internet to harass noise complainers evolved to be used for at least two different car
decals seen in the community. The change in the wording reveals an understanding of
the inadequacy of the past noise disclosure, but a refusal to let go of the lie they were
told. Signs It is interesting to discover the evolution of an idea. This one may have begun
with the following comment posted to a newspaper article last year: The commenter
defines an idiot as: a foolish or stupid person who buys a house under the flight path of
a Naval base, signs a noise disclosure form, then complains about the noise. Next, car
decals were made. They were advertised on a Pro-OLF site. We probably have a fleet of
vehicles, including a red truck with the decal covering most of the tail gate, with that very
same definition. And now, we have an updated version. The back window of a blue SUV
reads: idiot n. 1.a. foolish or stupid person. i.e. a person who buys a house under the
flight path of a naval air station then complains about the noise of the jets. At least some
of the harassers now recognize that buyers did not, in fact, sign a true noise disclosure.
But they miss morality and truth. They even miss the harm done to the Navy. Buyers
were denied information about a flight path, a naval air station, and jet noise. The law
that was not followed was written with guidance from the Navy and was intended to
prevent complaints that always arise around military air stations when citizens are not
told. There may be no air station with more problems than NASWI. Knowledge that there
was no jet noise disclosure has not stopped the harassers. Their logic has now morphed
to I knew about the jets, therefore everyone knew about the jets. This logical fallacy is
2151
taught in most high school English classes, but some are bound to miss it, and their
writing/thinking suffers. The word idiot is a word that is often used to express anger and
to hurt people. Like profanity, it usually has no literal meaning at all, so it is no surprise
that the car decal people made one up. They really should scope out more deserving
targets in their quest to protect NASWI including: County commissioners that allowed,
and still allow, building where the Navy specified no residential use; Individuals
responsible for implementing the Navy Encroachment Prevention Plan but failed to do so;
MLS attorneys who actually copyrighted and provided the wrong disclosure, ensuring
that the Navy recommendations made in 1992 would not be followed; Real estate
companies who promised knowledge of the law to their agents but required use of a
disclosure that did not follow the law; The realtor community which for years denied
there was something rotten in the disclosure and continued to defended it, even after it
was exposed for what it was, and of course Bullies who will use a lie to attack people
who are hurting. These signs say much more about the people who would actually buy
them and affix them to their vehicles than the people they are attacking. As more people
discover the truth, others will see that the decal people themselves are the definition, a
very public irony. Harassment by Leaders shows how elected officials and other leaders
have chosen to harass citizens instead of seeing the value in informing them Jill Johnson
Petitions Commissioner Johnson chose to use the they were told lie to get attention by
presenting petitions based on the lie, when she actually knew the truth. Now that it has
been revealed that the legal disclosure was not used and buyers were deceived, she has
changed her tune to they should have known. Janis Reid wrote in the Whidbey News
Times: Johnson said she believes its a homebuyers responsibility to research the area.
If you buy a house near a train track, you can expect a train to go by, Johnson said. I
am unclear on how so many people were confused. Nobody forced them to live here. The
county doesnt regulate choice. Most people living under Growler jets would welcome a
train which is many times quieter than the jets. The tracks are easy to see, too. Not so
with jets. People fly in from Seattle to look for a home, and may never see a plane, or
even the OLF, especially if looking in Admirals Cove. As a county official, she might
review her stated mission to protect citizens from noise that is far worse than a train. The
following chart shows a train at 80 decibels. The Growler jets fly over Admirals Cove at
119 decibels, or 16 times as loud (noise doubles with every 10 decibels). Its why people
grimace, cover their ears, sometimes run, and, of course, complain. But why blame
buyers? Why not just tell them? Click to open the following image:
2151
(b)(6)
2152
,
Comments: The Navy should determine the long-term result of the image that is being
created by inflicting tortuous noise on citizens trapped under their flight path and then
manipulating the NEPA process to continue and escalate. The Navy is seen as arrogant,
tyrannical, abusive, capable of inflicting terrible harm, and unwilling to consider civilian
protection as a part of military plans. The image could well tarnish the pride of those who
currently serve, Congressional willingness to look the other way, the ability to recruit
reputable people, and fan the flames when controversy arises. The Navy is an
embarrassment and an entity to be reviled. The following has been copied from the web
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/press/seattle-times-article/ Roaring controversy
over Navy jets on central Whidbey Island The Navy recently notified Whidbey Island
residents that training flights will resume, following many months of noise complaints and
a moratorium. By Nancy Bartley,Seattle Times staff reporter COUPEVILLE, Island
(b)(6)
County For the past six years,
has lived in a brown, cedar-sided
house on Whidbey Island overlooking Saratoga Passage. Sometimes Navy planes flew
past. Then there were more. And more. One day as a Navy Growler flew overhead, the
vibrations were so intense the glass covering a watercolor in her hall shattered. Not far
from her home, another house sustained nearly $14,000 in window damage from jet
vibrations, according to the homeowner. Thompson had had enough. She and her
(b)(6)
husband,
joined Citizens of the Ebey Reserve, one of two groups fighting to rid the
island of Outlying Landing Field (OLF), Coupeville. The landing strip was built in World
War II when planes were fewer, slower and quieter. But the field is now a key training
ground for Navy Growlers, Boeing-built jets based at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island.
Since the Growlers, which are used to suppress radar, arrived in 2008, the tolerance
many of the residents once had for the Whidbey Island air station has turned to outrage.
Citizens of the Ebeys Reserve for a Healthy, Safe & Peaceful Environment filed a lawsuit
against the Navy in July. Despite the complaints about an increase in noise from
continuous take-off-and-landing training flights skimming over roof tops, the Navy is
working on an environmental-impact statement to bring in two more squadrons of
Growlers by 2015. The last day of the public comment period for the EIS is Jan. 3, 2014.
The Navy called a moratorium on using OLF in late May and agreed to hold off using the
airfield until January 2014. Last week, the Navy notified residents that it will resume flying
at that time but would limit the flights from OLF to about 6,000 a year. There are 83
Growlers at the base, and by 2015, there will be 114. They wont all be at the base at the
same time since some may be deployed elsewhere, said Mike Welding, the air stations
public- affairs officer. And even though there is an increase in the number of planes, the
Navy says the new jets wont be used on aircraft carriers and therefore wont need to do
the touch-and-go training flights from OLF. The residents are dubious. In 2005, the Navy
did an Environmental Impact Assessment, an overview of potential environmental impact
but less detailed than a full environmental-impact statement, and told residents that the
Growlers would have little impact and would be fewer and quieter than the Prowler jets
they were replacing. Instead, the Navys flight statistics show the number of flights has
steadily increased. In 2005, there were 7,682 flights out of OLF, according to Navy
statistics, compared with 9,669 in 2012. In the first five months of 2013, there were 5,688
flights. Residents say training flights over the houses continue from 10 a.m. to 1 a.m. at
least five days a week. The Navy says that night trainingis critical to pilot training,
especially for night landings on aircraft carriers. Noise disclosure Island County has an
ordinance requiring all homebuyers to sign a noise-disclosure statement, acknowledging
theyve been warned about jet noise. The task is supposed to fall to the seller. When
county officials and the Coupeville mayor did a survey of those living in the west part of
Coupeville, they discovered that about one-third of the residents were never warned
about noise and had never signed a notice. Since the Growler noise has increased year
by year, most residents didnt realize they had purchased property in a Navy
flight-training zone. Complicating things, the county has two noise-disclosure forms. One
was written in 1992, indicating the island was in the proximity of five airfields, public and
private, and that residents might be exposed to noise exceeding 100 decibels, equivalent
to being three feet away from a gas lawn mower. The other form is abbreviated, written in
2002 and does not mention decibels or the number of airfields. Residents say the Island
County Board of Commissioners and U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, have been so in
favor of the Navy that there has been no consideration for their situation, something that
Larsens office denies while continuing to support the use of OLF. Residents say the
county has been so eager to acquire the taxes from real-estate sales that elected officials
have not adequately warned them about the jet noise. Island County Commissioner Jill
Johnson says the complaining residents should remember that the Navy is the largest
employer and the one with the most economic significance to the island. In 2012, the
Island County Economic Development Council reported that the wages for enlisted
personnel were $726 million compared to $66 million in wages from the retail industry,
(b)(6)
the next closest category, according to
the councils executive director. The
wages translate into buying power and the countys economic health, he said. Sound of
freedom Ever since the Navy put planes in populated areas during World War II, there
have been complaints about noise and counterarguments from those who say the roar of
Navy aircraft is the sound of freedom. Over the years, the conflict between the need for
Navy pilots to train and homeowners desire to live in peace in increasingly pricey and
scarce waterfront property has intensified. As bases have closed worldwide, air traffic has
consolidated at the stations that remain. Over the ensuing years, population densities
have increased around many of these installations, inevitably causing some to call for
decreased air operations at these facilities over concerns about aircraft noise, said
Kevin Stephens, commander of Whidbey air station, in an email. Whidbey now has the
450 sailors and six aircraft that were in Naval Station Rota, Spain, until 2005. It has the
Electronic Attack Squadron transferred from Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. In the
decades past, squadrons from Sand Point, Alameda, Calif., and Barbers Point, Hawaii,
were sent to Whidbey. Today there are 46 Navy bases remaining across the world and
50 that have closed or consolidated, sending aircraft and service personnel to other
stations. OLF is an integral and critical part of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, and is
used primarily to train Navy pilots for aircraft-carrier landing operations, Navy
spokesman Anthony Popp said in an email. OLF Coupeville is crucial to providing our
pilots a facility where they can realistically train and provides an area where pilots can fly
day or night in conditions similar to being at sea, he said. OLF is close to its home base
keeping costs down; it is located in an area with low density development, and has
very little ambient light which allows us to closely replicate the way landings are
conducted aboard ship at night, he said. The Navy insists the noise shouldnt be a
problem. The Navy measures the noise level by a modeling method, averaging it out
2152
over a 24-hour period, which includes time when the planes are not flying. Residents
measure the sound on handheld meters as planes fly over. They find the noise extreme.
Flying Growlers in touch-and-go practices is incompatible with the human, animal and
avian life in their path, Thompson said Residents say the Growler is noisier than its
predecessor because the Growler has wings designed with less lift, requiring more
throttle and more noise for touch-and-go landings. The Navy says the Growlers get out of
the area faster, thereby reducing noise exposure. The house shudders when they fly
over, said Robert Tank, a member of Citizens of the Ebey Reserve. He measured the
noise level between 110 and 120 decibels. You cant do anything when they are flying.
Youre locked out of using the phone, the television. You cant have a conversation. You
cant have guests over. Many residents talk of sleeping with ear plugs to protect their
hearing, and some have registered noise as high as 139 decibels. According to the
National Institutes of Health, permanent hearing loss starts with exposure in the 110 to
115 decibel range. Some of the residents formed the Citizens of the Ebeys Reserve for a
Healthy, Safe & Peaceful Environment and in July filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in
Seattle arguing that the Navy should have done a complete environmental-impact
statement before flying the Growlers at OLF, asking the court to stop the planes from
flying at OLF and to pay their attorney fees for bringing the action. As the controversy
continues, the community is increasingly divided and vicious. No harassment charges
One elderly woman, whose letter to the editor was published in the Whidbey
News-Times, went to the police after a man wrote in a letter to the newspaper that she
should be raped in her sleep for her opinion. The News-Times reported she received
harassing phone calls. Although police started an investigation, no charges were filed.
The intensity of the fight has a lot to do with the fear of the Navy leaving the island, say
Navy supporters. In 2005, as the Navy was looking at bases to close as part of the Base
Realignment and Closure effort, Whidbey was considered because it had an aging fleet
the Prowlers. But Larsen lobbied to keep it open, and the Growlers came to Whidbey
in 2008. If Thompson had been warned, she and her husband wouldnt have bought their
property, she said. I did know there was some kind of airfield there, but I was told there
were only a couple of flights a day. We never signed any form of disclosure regarding the
existence of the OLF. The Thompsons moved to Whidbey from Pennsylvania, where
they lived close to Willow Grove Naval Air Station. Babette Thompson said she never
heard jet noise there and never expected to hear it when they bought property on
Whidbey in Ebeys Landing National Historic Reserve. I know it sounds harsh, said
Commissioner Johnson, but people make choices when you buy property This is a
buyer-beware state. If you get view property for $250,000, you should ask questions.
2152
(b)(6)
2153
,
Comment: The influence of the Navy on the constant harassment of noise zone sufferers
on Whidbey Island is apparent in the reaction of real estate leaders confronted by County
Commissioners with their practice of using illegal noise disclosure for over 20 years. One
actually asked the commissions to excuse his failure to provide full disclosure as legally
required by considering that he was a Naval aviator who has two sons in combat. It
seems it is pro-Navy to break the law and inflict pain on people living in the noise zones
because the jets are flown by the Navy. This extreme lack of logic is common. The Navy
must break this cycle of influence through their public relations resources and from Navy
leadership at the top, the Base Commander, and on down. The formatting prevents the
version at http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/realtors-speak/ Realtors speak at
the December 23, 2013 Island County Commissioners Meeting, defending their history of
disclosure. Three island realtors, two of them owners of Windermere offices, spoke
during the comments period preceeding the Island County Commissioners Meeting
regarding the recent article in the Seattle Times. Below is a transcript of what each said,
followed by questions that should be considered. Or, view the video tape of the meeting.
(b)(6)
Statement made by
Windermere, Coupeville I just had two things that I want
to request to the board. I am a 50 year resident of Whidbey Island. As a realtor on this
island and as a retired Naval aviator, and as a father who has four sons that are in the
military, three of which have been in combat, two are in combat right now, Id like to ask
that the board consider that the military is a long-term partner in Whidbey Islands history
which goes back to 1858 when Fort Nugent was built. The idea of noise in the military is
not something that is new to Growlers. Its been around since big guns were installed at
Fort Casey in 1901, later at Fort Ebey in 1942. When I was a boy the A-6s were dropping
live ammunition just off the island keeping me awake all night and I kinda thought it was
cool. I understand that noise is a problem, but I want to read from our noise disclosure
form that I as a realtor have been giving out for the last 11 years. This form has not
changed since 2001. I want to read it out loud. It says Persons on the premises may be
exposed to a significant noise level as a result of airport operations. I cant understand
what could be more clear than noise disclosure that says that it is very significant.
Questions for Mr. Miller: Are you asking the county, buyers, and leasers to somehow
excuse non-disclosure because of the history and importance of the military and your
acceptance of noise as cool? What does your experience as a naval aviator and a
father with sons in the military have to do with realtors not providing noise information to
buyers and leasers as required by county law? Disclosure protects military installations.
That is why the Navy spends millions measuring noise and providing guidelines for
effective disclosure to prevent buyer remorse. Non-disclosure is an embarrassment to the
Navy and to pilots flying over homes where many people should have been told, but were
trapped, instead. You are proud of the form you have been using and ask, What could
be more clear? Isnt the legal form more clear? Why would significant airport noise be
better than telling buyers about military jet aircraft that fly day and night at 100+ decibels,
giving them a map and phone numbers to call, and more, which is included in the current
1992 noise disclosure law which has been ignored? It is a small point, but why would you
emphasize that the form mentions very significant airport noise instead what it says,
significant airport noise? Also, you do not seem to recognize there is a specific distinction
between an airport and a military jet installation. It is obvious to the county, the Navy, and
to HUD, and including the specific wording would have been helpful to buyers and
(b)(6)
renters, as well.
owner Windermere Coupeville and Oak Harbor offices I am
the owner of the Coupeville and Oak Harbor Windermere offices and I am here to talk
about efforts that people can go to beyond what is the typical form that is provided. One
of the things that I inherited from Sandy Roberts whom I purchased the Coupeville office
from was the idea that you would post the noise disclosure zones on a map so that we
could talk with our clients about what it is like to live on Whidbey Island and experience
what the aircraft noise was. We require our agents to have these discussions with
potential buyers and renters and in my 12 years of ownership no buyer has ever come to
me and said that my agent did not mention the circumstances of the noise. I, like Joe,
would welcome any help or feedback that we could do because we can always improve
what we are doing, but we have worked very hard to make sure that people understand
the noise and that the people who can handle living in those zones understand what
thats like so that people who dont want to live there can make a good decision. So, I just
want to bring that to your attention. Questions for(b)(6)
Why use a map of noise
zones on the wall instead of following the law and giving every buyer a copy, like you did
before 1993? How do you account for the discrepancy between your stated 12-year
history of no complaints of inadequate noise disclosure and the Seattle Times article
which said: When county officials and the Coupeville mayor did a survey of those living in
the west part of Coupeville, they discovered that about one-third of the residents were
never warned about noise and had never signed a notice. Since the Growler noise has
increased year by year, most residents didnt realize they had purchased property in a
Navy flight-training zone. Are you aware of the temptation of a struggling and/or unethical
agent to sell property in the jet zones without disclosure? Are you aware that
non-disclosure of jet noise inflicts terrible harm on a family and disclosure should not be
left to chance? Living with Growlers is much worse than dealing with a leaky roof or bad
plumbing. A move away from jet noise can cost tens of thousands of dollars, months of
time, and stress on the entire family. A family living paycheck to paycheck, knowing they
had signed a disclosure, would assume they would have no recourse except to try to find
some way to adjust to the awful noise, instead. Few could guess the NWMLS attorneys
would develop and copyright a disclosure that did not adhere to county law. What will
happen to the buyers who were trapped over the last 23 years when their time comes to
sell? There has been a gap in honest disclosure as the noise levels have gone up. What
will be the effect of honest disclosure of the full extent of the noise be, now that Growler
noise is comparable on some charts to standing next to the horn on a diesel locomotive
going on and off every 90 seconds for hours on end? Who will pay the eventual loss in
home values? Do you realize how real estate professionals have contributed to the lie
that buyers were told about the jet noise that has resulted in them being ignored by the
county and Navy and harassed by their neighbors? What affect has the lie had on the
willingness of the Navy to escalate the noise of planes to four times the 100+ decibels
disclosed in 1992, and to bring in additional Growler jets and pilots from around the world
to fly here, with no hint there will ever be any halt to this escalation in the future? Joe
Mossolino owner, Windermere, Freeland offices I am here to represent the real estate
interests and inadvertently the message that was in todays newspaper in the Seattle
Times talking about noise zones. Let me just say as a realtor and the owner of
Windermere Freeland offices who has worked for over 18 years here, the noise
disclosure is something that we take very seriously. The Northwest Multiple Listing
2153
Service, which was misquoted in todays newspaper, provides standard real estate forms
throughout the state. Any form a licensed broker uses must be approved by an attorney.
There is a state wide forms committee that meets to discuss revisions and changes to
forms. Id be happy to bring the issue of the form to the NWMLS forms committee so that
they can discuss the issue of the form. I am confident that the committee can react
quickly and make any revisions that may be necessary. I am happy to take any
suggestions that the county may have for improving the disclosure form to the NWMLS
forms committee attorneys and we can go from there. Questions for Mr. Mossolino: You
offer to bring the issue to the forms committee for discussion, expressing no sense of
urgency. Wouldnt it be more appropriate to immediately alert them that the noise
disclosure form they mandated for use is not consistent with Island County Law, that
many people will be incensed to find that information was withheld from them, and there
may be serious liability issues? Ninety-three properties were sold between June and
December in 2013 in the 98239 noise zone area code with no jet noise disclosure, no jets
flying overhead, and no jets at the OLF. Not all of them were in the noise/crash zones,
but imagine the surprise many of these buyers have had? Even someone familiar with
Whidbey and the jets would be horrified to discover what it is like living directly under
them, if they have not had plenty of experience actually being there first. Everything is
different: kids playing outside, ability to get to sleep and sleep well, pets, phone
conversations, celebrations, family visits, homework, crises, grief, sickness, romance,
sports, everyday frustrations, hobbies, music, gardening, sports, relaxation, health
concerns, learning issues, ear pain, stress. It wears on a person. You have become
immune to the pain of others, so no urgency. As you resume using the legal form, youll
trash the property of people who werent told about noise when they bought. Property
values have been masked by non-disclosure for so long it is hard to guess how low they
will settle. These problems could have been prevented. But now, the damage has been
done and it cant be fixed. Why would you need suggestions from the county for
improving the disclosure form when you have the 1992 law? It is outdated, but at least
the intent is to disclose. Questions for every island realtor: How will this issue affect the
real estate profession and the trust that is required for a smooth transaction? Many
glowing stories are told about professional realtors who routinely go beyond the law to
ensure that every buyer that they represent is fully informed, often even before taking a
client to look. It is unfortunate that their reputation will be tarnished by the decision of
NWMLS attorneys who made a bad choice and hurt a lot of people. It is easy to pretend
that the disclosure form used until January of this year was effective and that no more
was required, when it was totally inadequate. People have grown so used to ignoring
buyers in the noise zones and pretending that they were told, that logic and compassion
seems to have vanished. Has pretending they were told been easier than noticing how
serious their pain actually is, and realizing that not telling them about the noise is what
resulted in their pain? Has there actually been some question all these years that there
was something rotten in the noise disclosure? Wasnt it even discussed from time to
time? People wonder why houses are built in noise and crash zones here on Whidbey.
Almost all of Admirals Cove is in the OLF crash zone. All of them were permitted by the
county. Many were built by developers and sold by realtors with no disclosure, then
passed from buyer to buyer. Many have profited from the failure to use the legal
disclosure. 1. Island County, struggling to make ends meet, has profited from taxes. The
County ignored and even harassed the complainers based on the lie, as well, freeing
them from their commission to protect citizens as their first priority. 2. Realtors have
2153
profited by masking value and having a higher turnover of limited market inventory. 3.
Decisions about noise, altitudes, numbers, etc. have been made because full noise
disclosure has been assumed. Politicians have enjoyed freedom from guilt as they inflict
pain on people who are pinned under the noise. After all, they were told. 4. The Navy
has enjoyed popularity in a community which shows their support in an almost game-like
competition of harassing noise complainers. Harassers feel they are scoring points
against the opposition to save the OLF. This has been at the expense of people who
were NOT TOLD. What is going to happen when every person who leased or bought
homes under the jets realizes that the county disclosure law was intended to protect
them, but realtors opted to use a misleading form instead? Their question, regardless of
what their realtor did or did not tell them, will be, Could I have made a better decision for
my family if I had been given the legal form and map that I needed and deserved instead
of being misled? Click the link below to read Realtor Internet comments regarding
articles on the legality of the noise disclosure. Realtors Comment Realtors Comment on
Whidbey News Times Article, 12-28-2013 Realtors comment on the Whidbey News
Times (WNT) article, Island County officials say real estate agents responsible for proper
noise disclosure. Island County Planning Director, David Wechner, met with
commissioners at the Island County Commissioners Meeting on December 18th. He
explained that the law currently in effect in Island County requires realtors to disclose far
more than they do. Clay Miller and Rick Schutte, commented on the article on the WNT
web site as if they did not understand the content of what Planning Director Wechner
explained, clearly and specifically. They took the position that their failure to provide legal
disclosure is acceptable, and a signature on the form protects realtors from buyers that
would learn about the noise after they bought, hate it, and then complain. (b)(6)
said: But if they were (and every single buyer I have helped in the past 11 years has
been) given this form, and they do sign it then they are on record as being WARNED
that they are buying into a noisy area. The title alone should be enough for the average
human to understand. If you sign this form and buy the property, you are without excuse.
You cannot come back (as a Planning Director or a buyer) and claim ignorance, or blame
(b)(6)
other people for your choice.
says that a buyer would have to be below the
average human if they needed any more information than the title on the form. Perhaps
he is having trouble understanding what the form actually says. Here is his summary: (1)
you are about to buy something in an Airport Noise Zone; (2) you will be exposed to
SIGNIFICANT noise, and (3) you should CONSULT Island County ordinance before you
buy Lets take this point by point: 1. How many people know what a noise zone is, and
(b)(6)
since most dont, then why not just tell them
is an aviator, and has lived here
all his life. But what about an average buyer who had spent time around airports, but has
no idea military jets train here? 2. All airports have significant airport noise. The more
complete description that is in the legal disclosure includes significant jet aircraft noise
from a tactical military jet facility. That is much more helpful. Any other type of airport on
small Whidbey Island would cause little concern. Driving by the OLF wouldnt help, either.
If you took 10 pictures of the OLF from the road, and showed them to 100 people off the
island that had never been around a touch and go field, possibly none of them would be
able to guess the devastating effect the field would have on their lives if they bought a
home in that area. 3. The disclosure used by realtors did not recommend consulting the
Island County ordinance before buying. Remember, the disclosure used is for builders. It
said there are restrictions on building, and you should consult the Island County Noise
Level Reduction Ordinance to determine building restrictions, if any. A home buyer or
2153
leaser seldom plans to build, and is not interested in checking to see whether or not there
(b)(6)
are restrictions. If
s an average human, he will be able to understand that he
has failed his customers through the use of a misleading disclosure, and he was not
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
acting in accordance with Island County law.
commented on
remarks by saying, Well said, my friend. He has served in leadership roles in the
NWMLS, which coincidentally determines the forms realtors use, and the National
Association of Realtors, which provides insurance for agents and brokers to protect them
against individual and class action law suits for things like non-disclosure. The NAR
maintains attorneys to protect realtors when their actions are within the boundaries of the
law. He trains other realtors and likely transfers to them his attitudes towards buyers and
their need for disclosure. Here is his description of his role in the real estate profession:
Rick has been involved in the Real Estate industry on Whidbey Island since 1978. He is
the past President of Northwest Multiple Listing Service and has been involved with his
local Association of Realtors for many years. He currently sits on the Board of Directors
for the North Puget Sound Association of Realtors. As the owner and designated broker
(b)(6)
for Coldwell Banker Koetje Real Estate,
is actively involved in training and
supporting the brokers and support staff for this experienced real estate company. These
comments show why full disclosure of the noise is required by law. For many brokers
out there, disclosure would not happen otherwise. When buyers then become
complainers, the security of NASWI is threatened. They should be told long before they
buy. This is an excess of greed at a terrible expense, and these realtors feel they are
protected by a form with an obvious intent, and the intent was not to inform buyers. Click
below to see the full text of what each realtor had to say:
2153
(b)(6)
2154
,
Comment: Why does the Navy develop an AICUZ process to ensure compatible land use
and then fail to follow it? They Navy should investigate whether or not any Navy effort
went into influencing the county to zone land correctly and limit its use according to
AICUZ recommendations or use work with realtors to use the brochure produced and
disclose noise appropriately. What will a FOIA reveal? The following has been copied
from the web site, Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception. The formatting prevents the
version at http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/aicuz-brochures/ AICUZ
BROCHURES, DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS, SLIDE SHOWS, AND VIDEOS Purpose
of the AICUZ Program for Military Air Installations The problem of encroachment is a
serious concern for the Department of the Navy (DON) because of potential impacts to
established operational capabilities. Incompatible land use development in close
proximity to military aircraft operations increases the safety risk and level of annoyance
experienced by civilian populations. Navy experience has demonstrated that the
presence of these factors invariably result in restrictions being imposed on the conduct of
military operations, thereby adversely impacting the ability of an installation to fulfill its
assigned mission. As a means to prevent these conditions, the Department of Defense
(DOD) and the DON have implemented the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
program. The AICUZ program is intended to promote compatible land use at military
installations and in surrounding communities, and to protect the health, safety, and
welfare of civilians and military personnel in areas adjacent to military airfields. The
purpose of AICUZ studies, costing millions to produce, is to provide counties, cities,
realtors, and other entities with information to provide to buyers and renters in noise
zones in the form of disclosure statements, brochures, and web sites. Training for
counties and realtors for doing so is readily available on the Internet. The following are
examples of how communities around military installation have used this information and
training to prevent encroachment. EVIDENCE OF USE OF AICUZ PROGRAM TO
PREVENT ENCROACHMENT AT WHIDBEY ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION No
apparent use has been made of the following slide show, Military Airport and the
Community Next Door, to train county personnel. Island County Commissions have
shown no concern for encroachment around NASWI due to non-disclosure. Vague
wording was used for the builders ordinance in 1993 that became the statement realtors
used for buyers and renters instead of the legal disclosure. Realtors failed to provide the
legally required disclosure. The Navy produced a brochure at great expense, useful for
realtors and other groups. Realtors failed to use it: NAS_Whidbey_AICUZ_Brochure
AICUZ PROGRAM AT OTHER MILITARY AIR INSTALLATIONS NAVAL AIR STATION
NORFORK CHAMBERS FIELD, VIRGINIA
http://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/planning/areaplans/Documents/Oceana/
JLUSAICUZPlanningMap.pdf Virginia Peninsula Association of Realtors brochure
including video for realtors, buyers, and renters:
http://www.vpar.org/noise_contour_districts.asp MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
http://www.macdill.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-081029-042.pdf TINKER AIR
FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA
http://www.acogok.org/Websites/acogok/images/Downloads2013/JLUS_Docs/Tinker_100
__Citizens_Brochure_25_5x11.pdf EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
http://webgis.co.okaloosa.fl.us/jlus/docs/jlus_docs/Air%20Installation%20Compatible%20
Use%20Zone%20Study.pdf ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, MARYLAND
http://www.pgplanning.org/ ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE
http://ellsworthauthority.org/uploads/ACUIZ_Citizen_s_Brochure.pdf MINOT AIR FORCE
BASE, NORTH DAKOTA
http://books.google.com/books/about/AICUZ_Citizen_s_Brochure.html?id=SCTuGwAAC
AAJ MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
http://www.macdill.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-081029-042.pdf MARCH AIR
RESERVE BASE, CALIFORNIA http://www.marchjpa.com/docs_forms/aicuz2005.pdf
STATE OF VIRGINIA, MILITARY FACILITY DISCLOSURE REB Military Air Installation
Disclosure
2154
(b)(6)
2155
,
Comments: Why are there eight flight tracks at the OLF unless it is to lower the perceived
risk of a crash by simply using them to divide the total number? There is overlap of the
tracks over homes less than a mile from the strip. Why was this area not designated as a
crash zone? Was there an attempt to influence the county? Does the Navy actually care
about HUD financing, fear, property values, and risk? How is that concern reflected in
action? The following has been copied from the web site, Citizens Harmed by Disclosure
Deception. The formatting prevents the visuals and links to important documentation from
being viewed. Find the complete version at
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/crash-zones-hidden/ Crash Zones Hidden
What is a Crash Zone? Crash zones are the areas that extend out from military jet aircraft
runways where there is the highest danger of a crash. The military calls them the APZ1
and APZ2 zones. When the zones are described in the AICUZ studies (measuring
compatibility between the Navy and the surrounding community), the word crash is
substituted with the words mishap or incident. There are criteria for a crash zone.
They are defined by measurements (15,000 feet, or almost 3 miles extending from each
end of the runway), and the number of flights per year (5,000). Here is how one military
base defines a crash zone for its surrounding community: (click to enlarge) Why is
designating crash zones and keeping them free of homes important? When homes are
located in crash zones, there is potential for the closure of the military installation. The
City of Airway Heights, south of Spokan, has instituted the Fairchild Air Force Base
Preservation and Community Empowerment Project to buy homes in their crash zones to
prevent base closure over the next 3-5 years. Click here to learn more about the
program. http://www.cawh.org/fafb_protection_community_empowerment_project_1.asp
Click here for more information on the Frequently Asked Questions page:
http://www.cawh.org/community_partners.asp Are there crash zones on either side of the
runway at the OLF as there are at the end of the runways at the Ault Field in Oak
Harbor? Here are the designated crash zones around the Ault found in on page 5-11 of
the AICUZ study: (click to enlarge) Look at the map below from page 5-17 from the
AUCUZ. The yellow clear zones are designated, but the crash zones should extend to
the water on both sides. (Click to enlarge) Here are the crash zones draw in to be
consistent with those designated at the Ault: Lets look at an ariel view of the west side of
the runway, the community known as Admirals Cove. The clear zone is the area cleared
of tress. The crash zones comprise almost all of Admirals Cove. The county still permits
building, and several are currently under construction. (click to enlarge) The NASWI OLF
must stand ready to meet emergency needs that could reach far greater numbers than
the 6,120 operations projected for this year. In a June, 2014 letter, Captain Nortier said:
In the past, those operations (at the OLF) have exceeded more than 30,000 operations
annually, peaking in the 1990s. Overall operations have fluctuated depending upon
national requirements. The tempo of operations at the OLF are driven by carrier
deployment schedules and training requirements . . . to enable the Navys global mission.
It appears that people trapped under the noise are also responsible for bearing the crash
risk for any increase in training demand. It has happened repeatedly in the past, and
crash zone designations should have let them know it can easily happen again in the
future. More recently, the Navy added a number of tracks that divide the total of 5000 that
would define a crash zone. The numbers exceed the operations in the past for the OLF,
and may well exceed them again in the future. There are homes under several tracks
where they overlap that would qualify the area as a crash zone now.
2155
(b)(6)
2156
,
Comments: The Navy has put local elected officials in moral peril. They must either
support the Navy and its abuse of civilians by persecuting people in the noise zones by
ignoring their pleas for protection or commit political suicide. There are real character
issues in getting along with oneself and with being judged by others. Who in the Navy is
concerned about the reputation of the Navy? The following has been copied from the web
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/leadership-scoreboard/ Leadership Scoreboard
This page will be continuously under construction as it is determined who should be
taking a leadership role and act to solve the noise problem. As the list of leaders grows,
their positions on the issue will be added, along with the action they have taken. Anyone
mentioned here may submit additions and corrections on the Contact page if
accompanied with the appropriate, identifying email address. Supporting documentation
would be appreciated. The issue is: What should be done to remedy the plight of people
trapped under the jet path, who have been subjected to serious health and psychological
risks, and who have been persecuted and abused? The Navy conducts Growler pilot
training producing illegal noise over homes where there has been no disclosure for 20
years, and national defense needs could escalate the noise even further at any time.
Should the Navy continue to ineffectively police itself through Environmental Impact
Studies, or is it time for Congress to set some limits? Should Congress also consider and
fund civilian protection whenever it funds the escalation of military might? Lack of
leadership at the city, county, state, and national level, including elected officials, the
military, and others, produced the problem and allowed it to fester. A scoreboard must be
maintained of: 1. Leaders who took a stand and acted to solve the problem. 2. Leaders
who created and elevated the abuse and persecution 3. Leaders who now fail to take a
position and do nothing Tragically, the number of citizens being persecuted is in the
thousands, while the number of voters who benefit from the abuse number in the
hundreds of thousands. The Navy enjoys business as usual, and can expand at will. It is
unlikely that leadership will come from local elected officials or leaders from the base, but
at some point, some aspect of the enormity of what is happening will tip the scales and
attract outside leadership. Congress oversees national interests and the Department of
Defense oversees the military. A leader may arise from those ranks. It may take just one
person approaching someone with influence to start the chain of events that will lead to a
solution. Toward that end, an ASC Open Letter to members of the Armed Services
Committees for both the House and Senate has been sent to their offices and posted on
this web site. The same letter has also been sent to the Appropriation Committees. There
is already a public health emergency in the noise zones and persecution is widespread;
this must be stopped. In addition, 36 more Growlers have been requested, 70 more are
planned beyond that, and the military is setting up shop here to train foreign pilots flying
Growlers made in St. Louis. They have already begun with Australian pilots. As the news
coverage of this ridiculous increase over these civilian neighborhoods develops, this will
be seen far beyond the confines of small Whidbey Island. The citizens here deserve to
know the position of their leaders who could act, if only to speak up and make their
positions known. Reporters telling this story should know who is responsible for the
problem, and who is willing to be a part of the solution. The Leadership Scoreboard
below will provide some of that information: LEADERSHIP SCOREBOARD Leaders who
took a stand and/or acted to solve the problem Senator John McCain Responds Island
County Commissioner Helen Price Johnson district1@co.island.wa.us attempts to
lessen community strife works to mitigate the noise seeks the truth did not sign a
commissioners resolution in support of the OLF at all costs; but, she offered one of her
own in support of the base yet more sympathetic to the plight of citizens in the noise
zones However, she announced the County would not enforce the noise disclosure law,
leaving buyers exposed should realtors again fail to disclose in the future has not taken a
position on the noise disclosure issue Senator Maria Cantwell intervened when a
constituent who had voiced concerns to NASWI Base Commander Captain Nortier
received no response. A letter was sent, which appears to include the Navys position on
the noise disclosure issue. has seemed sympathetic when presented with the health
risks associated with noise Senator Maria Cantwell, Congressman Rick Larson,
Coupeville Mayor Nancy Conard On August 13, these representatives demanded
more public input on the basing of EA-18G Growlers. See Whidbey New Times Article. It
is not noted in the article that in a FIOA request by COER, the Navy had disclosed, on a
June 16th Memorandum from Rear Admiral K.R. Slates, that they intended to re-scope
the current Growlers. Did these representatives initiative a bold protective step, or was
this just a public show with no real meaning? This further demonstrates how ineffective
the Navy is in using the EIS process. Including possibly 36 additional Growlers in the
study should have been automatic, without any delay or demand. The comments that
follow the on-line article also show how even a request by these leaders to study this
addition was opposed by the pro-noise community. It is noteworthy that these leaders did
not request a halt to the noise assault while the study is being conducted, which may now
take years. Leaders who elevated abuse and persecution Congressman Derek Kilmer
Here is the form letter the Congressman is now sending: Kilmer letter Here is a response
to the letter: letter to Kilmer United States Congress Naval Research Advisory
Committee Jet Noise Report written to protect military personnel, ignored by
Congress charged with ensuring military defense capability AND protecting civilians
there are few measurements of military aircraft noise page 8 There has never been a
requirement for engine noise in the design of engines for tactical jet aircraft, nor does the
Navy measure or maintain an engine noise data base for tactical aircraft. page 8 there
are laws to protect citizens around civilian airports, but no civilian protection around
military installations page 6 Congress has left protection of families in the noise zones
to local leaders, but passing laws protecting home buyers may be contrary to: 1) the
interests of those individuals seeking re-election in military communities and 2) their
financial/influence seeking interests funded 122 (?) Growler jets and moved them to
Whidbey Island where the noise of last May will be greatly multiplied and make most of
the area unlivable especially in the noise zones directly under the jets Is incorporating
adding 36 more @ $60mil each into the current EIS and plans for 70 more beyond that
has let lawlessness become abuse no laws to protect citizens against damaging noise
from military training above civilian neighborhoods view this video, and imagine being in
a house you just bought which might be: directly under the plane, in a neighborhood
4000 feet from touchdown, with the noise at a higher level than an air raid siren, cycling
over every 90 seconds for hours on end realizing that your life would be forever dictated
by that noise, unless you moved again knowing the dramatic escalation of the noise and
the numbers of planes may never be checked by Congress, the only possible protection
click here to watch the video (you wont be able to hear the real volume, of course) Past
2156
Island County Commissioners an investigation should be done to determine how the

builders disclosure ended up as the copyrighted NWMLS disclosure for buyers, instead
of the legal disclosure an investigation should be done to determine why building permits
have been issued, and continue to be issued, in areas where the Navy recommends
there be no residential use Past Navy Liaison Rich Melass In 2002, the Navy Liaison
was quoted in the Minutes of an Island County Commissioners Meeting. (click to enlarge)
The noise ordinance for builders being adopted at this meeting included the misleading
noise disclosure for builders, despite the fact that the law required much more. The Navy
has continually sent out the 1992 noise disclosure to people asking about jet noise,
despite the fact that the misleading version was being used by area realtors. The
ordinance was used to justify building where the Navy had recommended there should be
no residential housing. See those recommendations in this brochure:
NAS_Whidbey_AICUZ_Brochure) As a result, homes continued to be built in the noise
zones, the tax base was increased, and homes were then sold to unsuspecting buyers It
appears that no Navy influence was used to insure disclosure to buyers. If there had
been appropriate concern, at the very least, support and recommendation could have
withheld, attendance at this meeting could have been waived or refused, a statement
made, or any number of other alternatives. This was a missed opportunity for this
community because Navy leadership necessary to prevent buyer remorse was not
present. Island County Commissioner Jill Johnson district2@co.island.wa.us ignored
scores of contacts, seems to seek the spotlight and taunt jet noise sufferers by: by 1)
signing a IC Commissioners Resolution supporting the OLF training, specifically stating
there should be no limit to the number, the noise level, or the extremely low altitude of
military jets flying over North and Central Whidbey and disregarding the pain of people
trapped and suffering under those jets, and 2) publicly presenting to the Navy (as a part
of the EIS) petitions representing 6,000 signers headed with a petition statement saying
that buyers were told about jet noise along with other derogatory remarks that she knew
to be untrue 3) defended a 20 year record of misleading disclosure that was not
consistent with county law to the press by saying that knowing about the OLF jets is as
obvious as knowing about a train track buyers are to blame due to their lack of research
Oak Harbor Mayor Scott Dudley Wore an I Love Jet Noise T-shirt along with all council
members to a city council meeting see photo from Whidbey News Times article despite knowing what the unbearable repeated sound of Growler jets circling low
overhead means to people with only cost prohibitive options for escape also participated
in the petitions presentation to the Navy, knowing the disclosure reference in the
statement was not true, and despite the derogatory misrepresentation of all noise zone
buyers Captain Michael Nortier, NASWI Base Commander michael.nortier@navy.mil has
ignored scores of contacts providing information about all aspects of the disclosure issue
was given specific information on the noise deception in one-on-one conversations at
least 3 times at two EIS meetings in December, where each time he seemed to be fully
engaged in listening, but twice reacted as if he had just heard the information for the first
time The United States Navy See EIS Deception for statements the Navy has made that
show the current EIS should be closely monitored by Congress In a June 2014 letter to
Senator Cantwells office, Captain Nortier seems to be presenting the Navy position: He
says that disclosure has occurred since 1992 in both Island County and Oak Harbor,
despite his personal knowledge that realtors did not provide any jet noise information
required by law. He also put the level of commitment of the Navy to ensure disclosure for
buyers at the try level, despite the fact that each Navy representative involved had more
2156
than sufficient influence within the community to act at a get it done level. It is not
necessary to have authority to use influence. Disclosure should have been a priority and
the Navy could have exercised leadership (read portions here) suggested a limit to Navy
operations at the Coupeville OLF at 6,120, but also stated that the number will be
dictated by defense needs which exceeded 30,000 in 1992 the 6,120 limit imposed by
the 2005 Environment Assessment/EA cap on OLF operations was exceeded by June of
last year, requiring a community funded COER lawsuit to stop it does not recognize the
damaging health effects of noise levels coupled with noise annoyance, citing studies at
commercial airports where the noise experienced is very different from a Growler jet
flying over repeatedly at low altitude says noise levels of the Growlers are comparable
to the Prowlers. See the Noise Volume page for measurements of Growler noise taken
next to homes under the flight paths. says noise levels from jets are not as damaging
because they are not as constant as those measured in workplace studies, but no study
has been done under these extreme noise level and noise annoyance conditions copy of
the full Nortier letter to Cantwell An investigation should be made regarding the number
of contacts made by citizens to the Navy reporting 1) inadequate disclosure over the last
two decades and 2) information that realtors were using the wrong form that were
ignored. Congressperson Rick Larsen Matt.Bormet@mail.house.gov scores of contacts
with no response, at a campaign event, when asked about buyers who have received no
disclosure for over 20 years, he responded I dont care recommends an escalation of
the number of jets with no concern for the population below. Senator Barbara Mulkulski
Senate Appropriations Committee After a lengthy conversation about the Open Letter
issues, the aide who answered the call on 9/2 at the end of the Washington DC day said
that the Senator would not want to be informed of important facts related to Growler jet
decisions. The aide was informed his response would be posted, and he said the Press
office should be contacted. The call was to be forwarded to the Press office, but went
dead. A call back to the same number went unanswered, but was answered from another
number. A request for the name of the aide resulted in a hang up. President Barak
Obama many emails and two phone calls sent an email with no meaningful content
instead of a genuine response Leaders who have communicated to determine a course
of action: Congressman Derek Kilmer Aaron.Wasserman@mail.house.gov Here is a
summary of the conversation with Aaron Wasserman regarding the ASC Open Letter to
Congressman Kilmer. He said he would edit the response to #1, but since 7/30, has not
done so: 1. He said that Congressman Kilmer has chosen not to work to ensure the
validity of the current EIS, despite the fact that the Navy has already made some very
troubling statements, because the OLF noise does not affect his constituents. 2. He
would not comment on how the Congressman might vote on the ASC decision to fund
additional Growlers. 3. He would not comment on the position of the Congressman on the
need for Congress to impose limits on the noise/altitude/number of flights over civilian
neighborhoods to limit the abuse that is escalating. 4. He did not comment on the
Congressmans position on the disclosure issue: Should the Navy should be flying
Growler jets above densely populated neighborhoods built in crash zones where there
has been no disclosure at all for 20 years, especially considering the Navys role in in the
cause? This position should affect all decisions related to the OLF. Congressman Buck
McKeon, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee
Claude.Chafin@mail.house.gov Claude Chafin is the Communications Director at House
Armed Services Committee conversation served well the Congressman, the
Committee, and a citizen wanting to inform the Committee of military abuse requiring
2156
Congressional intervention Promised to review web site information, advise

Congressman McKeon, and take a follow-up call Congressman Adam Smith, Ranking
Member of the House Armed Services Committee. Here is summary of the conversation
with Jonathan Pawlow regarding the ASC Open Letter to Congressman Smith
Jonathan.Pawlow@mail.house.gov 1. He understands the health issues as explained
earlier by representatives from COER. He has an initial understanding of the disclosure
deception issue and noise annoyance factors unique to NASWI, which compound the
health risks 2. He sees a possible need for the Armed Forces Committee to oversee the
current EIS. He said it is typical to first let it run its course, but hopefully the emergency
that exists here will accelerate the timing of oversight because months and years are
really too long to wait. The EIS is already years overdue. 3. He explained Congressional
courtesy regarding issues outside a legislators district, but understood we must pursue
protection from the Armed Services Committee and Congress as a whole because
defense of this population by local leaders is political suicide. As this story gets broader
exposure, including years of persecution by local leaders, the response of Congress
should get more attention. 4. There were three additional items he wants to study further:
A. Can alternatives to the Coupeville OLF be found and budgeted? When Congress
funds the protection of our country, should protection of civilians should be factored into
that budget? B. 5th Amendment Rights and all noise laws are being violated here as the
Navy seeks maximum ability to protect the nation. Should the Navy be expected to police
itself? C. How will the Congressman vote on adding 36 additional Growlers and possibly
70 more beyond that? Environmental Protection Agency Dennis Mc Lerran, Regional
Administrator After several calls and emails to the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Regional Administrator explained the inability of the EPA to enforce the Noise Control Act
in a letter explaining that Congress eliminated EPA funding. The laws are still in effect,
but enforcement was passed on to state and local government. Elaine Somers at the
EPA is now investigating how to connect with Congressional Committees to insure they
are fully informed as to what is currently happening to citizens below the flight paths of
Growler jets and what might happen if 92 more are added over this community Leaders
who have not responded to scores of contacts Senator Barbara Bailey 10h Legislative
District Senator Patty Murray Governor Jay Inslee Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez
past Ranking Member Armed Services Committee eduardo.lerma@mail.house.gov
Leaders who have not responded to initial contacts Buck McKeon Chairman House
Armed Services Committee Heather.Duncan@mail.house.gov Leaders recently
contacted Local Congressional Leaders, including Congressman Larson, Senator
Cantwell, and Senator Murray: Requested that these leaders meet the moral obligation
to inform committee members in Congress making decisions regarding Growler jets of
the abuse and persecution that is already occurring in the neighborhoods below the
flights and the likely affect of an increase requested a response Armed Services
Committees Open letter to members of both the House and Senate Armed Services
Committee after an email (similar to the one above) was sent to several members of the
Armed Services Committee and to contacts for Admiral Manizir, this Press Release was
sent Navy to Analyze Growler Alternatives . Appropriations Committees The same
Open Letter has been sent Vice President Joe Biden Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Armed Services David_Lyles@Levin.Senate.Gov Congressman
Howard Buck McKeon, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee
Heather.Duncan@mail.house.gov Rear Admiral Michael C Manizir 5-29-2014 letter
2156
requesting 22 more Growlers for Whidbey Island 5 29 14 Admiral Manizir 22 Growlers

Representative Norma Smith
2156
(b)(6)
2157
,
xComments: It is unbelievable that Captain Nortier has signed a letter implying that noise
has no impact on human health. Is he unaware of billions of dollars paid in service
connected noise health problems? Instead manipulating information from old health
studies that are not comparable, consider the studies below. Consider all reasonably
recent health studies. Shouldnt the bias stop now? Just use common sense. The Navy
should not be working against people facing health problems as did the cigarette
companies with people who had lung cancer. Of course there is no way to prove cause
and effect to prove liability. Liability is not the issue in an EIS, but prevent significant
impacts is. The results of this extreme noise are predictable, the noise is illegal, and it
should not be inflicted on US civilian populations by the United States Navy. The
following has been copied from the web site, Citizens Harmed by Disclosure Deception. It
was copied into the on-line form provided. If the formatting prevents the visuals from
being viewed or the links are hard to follow, see the same information at:
http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/health-emergency/ Health Emergency The
current Environmental Impact Study must include a health component. Studies have
never been done on the heath risks associated with the extreme noise levels directly
under the flight path of Growler jets because the levels are off the charts and illegal
everywhere. Ignoring guidelines from the World Health Organization, OSHA, and the
Department of Defense, the Navy has already proclaimed there is no health impact
associated with NASWI operations. (see Noise Volume) The Environmental Impact Study
(EIS) should conduct on-the-ground measurements instead of the computer modeling
currently used that shows noise levels far lower than what was professionally and
independently measured in the Lilly Report. Those same Navy computer measurements
also determined that the Growler is quieter than the Prowler, a finding that was disputed
by hundreds of people submitting comments for the EIS, including those that avidly
support the Navy. A return to normal training after the current EIS will again put Growlers
on their established flight path, at altitudes between 250-440 feet over densely populated
neighborhoods with engines pointed down at almost full thrust; and, the Navy plan is to
double the number of planes. Because there are no previous studies on the health effects
of noise at these levels, they must be conducted. If common sense alone does not point
to the obvious conclusion that no one should be subjected to this extreme noise, hard
data will. Of course all training should cease as these studies are completed. It must also
be remembered that national defense needs could, at any time, again require 30,000
operations a year at the outlying field (OLF), which would be 24,000 beyond present
limits, another reason that the OLF cannot be used dependably and safely and should
be moved now. Though studies are limited, here are a few sources that document the
health emergency. The first source is the report presented at a health workshop in
Coupeville provided by the Citizens of Ebeys Reserve (COER) to inform the community
of the health emergency we face. Read through the report here: 2-14-2014 Presentation
Community Aircraft Noise_A Public Health Issue Here is a video of this COER
presentation. Here is another report below that demonstrates the reluctance of the Navy
to protect even enlisted personnel from the harmful effects of noise despite the 2009:
Navy Report on Harmful Noise Here are two additional reports from the Department of
Defense: 2009: Dept. of Defense Report on Sleep Disturbance from Aviation Noise 2009:
Dept. of Defense Report on Community Annoyance from Aircraft Noise Over 100 recent
articles on the harmful affects of noise US National Library of Medicine and the National
Institute of Health see http://disclosuredeception.wordpress.com/health-emergency/ for
links to all of the above studies.
2157
(b)(6)
2158

I support additional Growlers coming to NAS Whidbey Island and operating at both NAS
and OLF Coupeville. As a tax payer it only makes sense to me for additional EA-18G
airplanes the Navy may need to be co-located with all the other EA-18G airplanes the
Navy has. The amount of additional noise added by the additional flights added by these
extra aircraft is still very small compared to the number of flights flown at OLF in the 70's,
80's and early 90's. The Navy has being flying out of OLF and NAS Whidbey for over 70
years each so these two runways are long grandfathered. Jets have been flying out of
NAS Whidbey and OLF Coupeville for over 50 years so the jet noise is also long since
grandfathered. My only request is to make sure you estimate a high/large number of
operations at OLF so that when world situation exist requiring lots of carrier flights you
don't have to go back and do an update of your EIS. That just costs lots of local turmoil
caused by a few people that don't support the military. This vast majority of this
community supports the military and having to listen to the few but vocal complainers is
distasteful to the majority. Thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2159
Anacortes, WA 98221
I request the most extensive EIS for the proposed increase in NAS Whidbey actities. The
existing noise is already far and above what we the public should be exposed to, not to
mention the wildlife, and to involve public lands where we go to for peace and quiet.
(b)(6)
2160

I support the use of OLF Coupeville for flight training purposes for additional EA-18G
Growler Aircraft.
(b)(6)
2161

It seems that most people have moved to the San Juan Islands for the peacefulness and
beauty of the land and sea. Now evermore frequently the island tranquility is disrupted
with the Navy Growler jets that fly over. The islanders have sought a life far removed
from city life. The presence of these Navy Growler jets are an intrusion on the island.
Property values will diminish with the industrial effect of these harsh noises. Basically it is
very uncomfortable
and unnerving to be subjected this infringement of a quiet life.
(b)(6)
Respectfully
(b)(6)
2162

EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic
6506 Hampton Blvd. Norfolk, VA 23508 Attention: Code EV21/SS Message: Please
register my opposition to the Navys proposed electromagnetic warfare training in the
Olympic National Forest and over the Olympic Peninsula. I am writing this as a
concerned citizen and property owner in the affected area. The following issues are of
concern to me and my wife and we would like to receive answers to the questions raised.
Issue 1. The Navy violated NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act and the National
Environmental Protection Agency) procedure by their failure to adequately notify the
public about their project. (tiny notices were placed in obscure locations, and published in
distant newspapers.) The public was not adequately informed, as Federal law requires.
Our Questions: Why were the communities where this testing is to be done not notified?
Why were no public hearings held for the Navys drafting of their EA? Why were no local
newspapers notified? Why were no local elected officials notified? Issue 2. The Navy
violated NEPA procedure by not notifying or consulting with Olympic National Park as
they drafted their Environmental Assessment (EA). This project will severely impact the
wilderness experience for millions of visitors to the Park every year. By law, the National
Park should have been consulted when the Navy was drafting their plans. Our Questions:
Why was the Olympic National Park not notified or consulted by the Navy during the
drafting of this EA? (The Navy has told the public that they did consult with the Park, but
this appears erroneous.) Do they have any records of their consultation with the Park? If
they do, why isn't it available for the public to see? Isn't it the Forest Service's
responsibility to verify this? Why hasn't the Forest Service conducted a formal
investigation of this violation? Why did the map on the Navys EA not show the Olympic
National Park boundaries? Issue 3. The Navy violated NEPA procedure by not
addressing future and cumulative impacts of the project. Federal Law requires that these
be fully disclosed and analyzed. The Navy states that their project aims to "accommodate
growth in future training requirements," yet they do not specifically disclose what that
growth will include, nor analyze its impacts. According to the Navy's own briefs, the
interception and disabling of signals by their planes, called Growlers, plays a central role
in electronic warfare training. As such, the Navy must address this very plausible
escalation in their EA. All future phases of the Electronic Warfare Training Project must
be fully disclosed and evaluated in full, and by Federal law the Navy is not permitted to
disclose their plans incrementally or attempt to disguise their bigger plans by a
"piecemeal" approach. USFS Ranger Dean Millett has stated that he is not considering
the larger plan of the Navy's, but is limiting his "decision space" to just the use of Forest
roads for the emitters. He is not considering the supersonic jets--either their noise or their
radiation--in his decision. Our Questions: Why are both the Navy and the Forest Service
narrowing their focus so dramatically, when NEPA clearly states that the entire project
and its impacts need to be included? Separating out partial aspects of the bigger project,
(which includes many supersonic Growler jets practicing with active attack radiation), is
clearly part of the future training program and needs to be fully disclosed and analyzed.
Exactly how much radiation will be projected from each of the Growler jets in one day's
training as they practice their warfare tactics? Why is the Forest Service not demanding
full transparency and full disclosure as Federal law mandates? Issue 4. The Navy
violated NEPA procedure by not using the most recent and "best available science" in
their conclusion that there will be "No Significant Impact" from their project. Their
supporting science documents are weak and sorely outdated. Thousands of recent,
peer-reviewed studies indicate there are very real harmful effects---both to humans and
to wildlife--- from man-made electromagnetic fields. The Navy sited only one very dated
and narrow experiment on DNA fragmentation to justify their claim that electromagnetic
radiation is harmless. (See the Navy's EA 3.1.1.2). They have chosen to ignore
thousands of rigorous scientific studies. The Navy's EA is very deficient in this regard,
and as such, it violates Federal law. When the public brought this serious deficiency to
the attention of Ranger Millett, he replied that the Navy's science is "good enough" for
him. Our Questions: Why is the Forest Service not demanding that the Navy use the
most recent and best available science? This project will include active, focused use of
electromagnetic weaponry, pointed down towards the earth and projecting into airspace
and the damage to living systems could be significant. Why is the Forest Service not
addressing this? Why are they allowing the Navy to manipulate the NEPA process in this
manner when the flaws and deficiencies of the Navy's EA are so blatant? Isn't it the
Forest Service's responsibility to demand that the Navy fully disclose all impacts of this
project, including the future escalation of the training? Why is the Forest Service skirting
their responsibilities? Why aren't they protecting the forest and its visitors from this
potentially harmful project? Isnt that their responsibility? Issue 5. The Navy violated
NEPA procedure by failing to address the impacts this electromagnetic radiation will have
on bees, butterflies, birds and bats as well as a multitude of other small animals and
insects. Because the current worldwide Bee Colony Collapse is such a threat to our food
security, the President of the United States has called for all government agencies,
including the Department of Defense and the Dept of Agriculture, to make the protection
of pollinators a critical priority. Scientists have found that man-made Electro-Magnetic
Radiation radically disrupts bees' ability to navigate and find their way back to their hives.
Also the Navy's assessment does not address the harm this radiation causes to
amphibians. These omissions in the Navy's EA renders the document deficient. As such,
it is a violation of NEPA. Our Questions: Why is the Forest Service not requiring the Navy
to address the impacts of this project on bees, birds, bats, butterflies, other insects,
amphibians and animals? Numerous scientific studies document very real harm to these
creatures from man-made electromagnetic fields. Why is this being overlooked? Why is
the Forest Service not requiring comprehensive studies of the flora and fauna in the
forests they are supposed to be protecting? Issue 6. The Navy violated NEPA procedure
by not addressing at all the following areas where impacts will be experienced. Federal
Law requires that the Navy fully analyze and disclose all potential impacts---direct,
indirect and cumulative--- that their project could have. Neither the Navy nor the Forest
Service are permitted to dismiss the following issues: A. Noise from the airplanes: This
was completely ignored in the Navy's EA. The "soundscape" of Olympic National Park
and the surrounding wilderness areas will be severely impacted by squadrons of
supersonic jets practicing overhead most days of the year. This noise will also greatly
impact thousands of citizens' "quality of life" who are forced to live directly underneath
these flight paths. We live in Port Townsend and the new Growlers being used have
already escalated the number of flights, the frequency and the low altitude of flights over
our area, creating loud disturbances in our airspace. They fly these very loud sorties from
Whidbey Island Navy Base over our homes often. The projection is for the number of
planes and flights to dramatically increase as the plan is rolled out. Question: Why is this
2162
considered acceptable? B. Pollution: The Navy did not address the pollution, from noise,
jet-trail chemicals and electromagnetic radiation that would be produced from the
airplanes. The chemical pollution alone from just one of these jets is tremendous.
Question: Why was the pollution factor from these Growlers not addressed? C. Land-use,
traditional use, cultural use: Since the early 1900s, these pristine coastal regions and
forests have provided critical habitat and protected sanctuary for wildlife. This area, long
used by millions of visitors every year for recreation, will radically be altered by the
Navy's project. The noise, the pollution, and the electromagnetic radiation would damage
the wilderness experience and severely impact recreational use in a negative way. D.
Economic and social impacts: Visitors to the Olympic National Park are a driving force of
the economies of this region. Degrading the Park, as this project threatens to do, could
have a huge negative impact on the Peninsula's economy, as families choose to go
elsewhere for their vacations because of the hazards to public health and the disruptive
noise. The Olympic Peninsula would also no longer be as desirable a place to live, and
real estate prices could drop. E. The Forest Service's management plan: If the Forest
Service grants this permit, they are in violation of their own management plan, and the
National Forest Management Act. The Department of Defense does not have the right to
override the Forest Service's own management plan and this Act. Electronic warfare
training is not consistent with the public purposes for which national forests are reserved.
According to the US Forest Service's own regulations, military use our public lands is not
permissible if the military has other "suitable and available" lands for their proposed
action. The military has hundreds of thousands of acres of remote lands that are used for
just this kind of hazardous testing and training. Every viable alternative needs to be
considered. Question: Why hasn't the Forest Service required the Navy to use these
other lands that are available? F: The Forest Service's own management policy: Their
policy states that when considering issuing such a permit,"the interests and needs of the
general public shall be given priority over those of the applicant." The public has spoken
loudly about this issue and have communicated clearly what their needs and desires are.
Question: Why are the needs and desires of the general public NOT being given priority
over the desires of the Navy? Sincerely, Stephen Yates Issue 2. The Navy violated NEPA
procedure by not notifying or consulting with Olympic National Park as they drafted their
Environmental Assessment (EA). This project will severely impact the wilderness
experience for millions of visitors to the Park every year. By law, the National Park should
have been consulted when the Navy was drafting their plans. Our Questions: Why was
the Olympic National Park not notified or consulted by the Navy during the drafting of this
EA? (The Navy has told the public that they did consult with the Park, but this appears
erroneous.) Do they have any records of their consultation with the Park? If they do, why
isn't it available for the public to see? Isn't it the Forest Service's responsibility to verify
this? Why hasn't the Forest Service conducted a formal investigation of this violation?
Why did the map on the Navys EA not show the Olympic National Park boundaries?
Issue 3. The Navy violated NEPA procedure by not addressing future and cumulative
impacts of the project. Federal Law requires that these be fully disclosed and analyzed.
The Navy states that their project aims to "accommodate growth in future training
requirements," yet they do not specifically disclose what that growth will include, nor
analyze its impacts. According to the Navy's own briefs, the interception and disabling of
signals by their planes, called Growlers, plays a central role in electronic warfare training.
As such, the Navy must address this very plausible escalation in their EA. All future
phases of the Electronic Warfare Training Project must be fully disclosed and evaluated
2162
in full, and by Federal law the Navy is not permitted to disclose their plans incrementally
or attempt to disguise their bigger plans by a "piecemeal" approach. USFS Ranger Dean
Millett has stated that he is not considering the larger plan of the Navy's, but is limiting his
"decision space" to just the use of Forest roads for the emitters. He is not considering the
supersonic jets--either their noise or their radiation--in his decision. Our Questions: Why
are both the Navy and the Forest Service narrowing their focus so dramatically, when
NEPA clearly states that the entire project and its impacts need to be included?
Separating out partial aspects of the bigger project, (which includes many supersonic
Growler jets practicing with active attack radiation), is clearly part of the future training
program and needs to be fully disclosed and analyzed. Exactly how much radiation will
be projected from each of the Growler jets in one day's training as they practice their
warfare tactics? Why is the Forest Service not demanding full transparency and full
disclosure as Federal law mandates? Issue 4. The Navy violated NEPA procedure by not
using the most recent and "best available science" in their conclusion that there will be
"No Significant Impact" from their project. Their supporting science documents are weak
and sorely outdated. Thousands of recent, peer-reviewed studies indicate there are very
real harmful effects---both to humans and to wildlife--- from man-made electromagnetic
fields. The Navy sited only one very dated and narrow experiment on DNA fragmentation
to justify their claim that electromagnetic radiation is harmless. (See the Navy's EA
3.1.1.2). They have chosen to ignore thousands of rigorous scientific studies. The Navy's
EA is very deficient in this regard, and as such, it violates Federal law. When the public
brought this serious deficiency to the attention of Ranger Millett, he replied that the
Navy's science is "good enough" for him. Our Questions: Why is the Forest Service not
demanding that the Navy use the most recent and best available science? This project
will include active, focused use of electromagnetic weaponry, pointed down towards the
earth and projecting into airspace and the damage to living systems could be significant.
Why is the Forest Service not addressing this? Why are they allowing the Navy to
manipulate the NEPA process in this manner when the flaws and deficiencies of the
Navy's EA are so blatant? Isn't it the Forest Service's responsibility to demand that the
Navy fully disclose all impacts of this project, including the future escalation of the
training? Why is the Forest Service skirting their responsibilities? Why aren't they
protecting the forest and its visitors from this potentially harmful project? Isnt that their
responsibility? Issue 5. The Navy violated NEPA procedure by failing to address the
impacts this electromagnetic radiation will have on bees, butterflies, birds and bats as
well as a multitude of other small animals and insects. Because the current worldwide
Bee Colony Collapse is such a threat to our food security, the President of the United
States has called for all government agencies, including the Department of Defense and
the Dept of Agriculture, to make the protection of pollinators a critical priority. Scientists
have found that man-made Electro-Magnetic Radiation radically disrupts bees' ability to
navigate and find their way back to their hives. Also the Navy's assessment does not
address the harm this radiation causes to amphibians. These omissions in the Navy's EA
renders the document deficient. As such, it is a violation of NEPA. Our Questions: Why is
the Forest Service not requiring the Navy to address the impacts of this project on bees,
birds, bats, butterflies, other insects, amphibians and animals? Numerous scientific
studies document very real harm to these creatures from man-made electromagnetic
fields. Why is this being overlooked? Why is the Forest Service not requiring
comprehensive studies of the flora and fauna in the forests they are supposed to be
protecting? Issue 6. The Navy violated NEPA procedure by not addressing at all the
2162
following areas where impacts will be experienced. Federal Law requires that the Navy
fully analyze and disclose all potential impacts---direct, indirect and cumulative--- that
their project could have. Neither the Navy nor the Forest Service are permitted to dismiss
the following issues: A. Noise from the airplanes: This was completely ignored in the
Navy's EA. The "soundscape" of Olympic National Park and the surrounding wilderness
areas will be severely impacted by squadrons of supersonic jets practicing overhead
most days of the year. This noise will also greatly impact thousands of citizens' "quality of
life" who are forced to live directly underneath these flight paths. We live in Port
Townsend and the new Growlers being used have already escalated the number of
flights, the frequency and the low altitude of flights over our area, creating loud
disturbances in our airspace. They fly these very loud sorties from Whidbey Island Navy
Base over our homes often. The projection is for the number of planes and flights to
dramatically increase as the plan is rolled out. Question: Why is this considered
acceptable? B. Pollution: The Navy did not address the pollution, from noise, jet-trail
chemicals and electromagnetic radiation that would be produced from the airplanes. The
chemical pollution alone from just one of these jets is tremendous. Question: Why was
the pollution factor from these Growlers not addressed? C. Land-use, traditional use,
cultural use: Since the early 1900s, these pristine coastal regions and forests have
provided critical habitat and protected sanctuary for wildlife. This area, long used by
millions of visitors every year for recreation, will radically be altered by the Navy's project.
The noise, the pollution, and the electromagnetic radiation would damage the wilderness
experience and severely impact recreational use in a negative way. D. Economic and
social impacts: Visitors to the Olympic National Park are a driving force of the economies
of this region. Degrading the Park, as this project threatens to do, could have a huge
negative impact on the Peninsula's economy, as families choose to go elsewhere for their
vacations because of the hazards to public health and the disruptive noise. The Olympic
Peninsula would also no longer be as desirable a place to live, and real estate prices
could drop. E. The Forest Service's management plan: If the Forest Service grants this
permit, they are in violation of their own management plan, and the National Forest
Management Act. The Department of Defense does not have the right to override the
Forest Service's own management plan and this Act. Electronic warfare training is not
consistent with the public purposes for which national forests are reserved. According to
the US Forest Service's own regulations, military use our public lands is not permissible if
the military has other "suitable and available" lands for their proposed action. The military
has hundreds of thousands of acres of remote lands that are used for just this kind of
hazardous testing and training. Every viable alternative needs to be considered.
Question: Why hasn't the Forest Service required the Navy to use these other lands that
are available? F: The Forest Service's own management policy: Their policy states that
when considering issuing such a permit, "the interests and needs of the general public
shall be given priority over those of the applicant." The public has spoken loudly about
this issue and have communicated clearly what their needs and desires are. Question:
Why are the needs and desires of the general public NOT being given priority over the
desires of the Navy? Sincerely,(b)(6)
2162
(b)(6)
2163
ALBION, CA 95410
Thanks for accepting public comments. No need to turn the Pacific Northwest into a war
zone. No more Growler jets. No more electronic warfare.
2164
,
Navy presence is no longer appreciated on this Island because of the invasive
technology being used, If mass population slaughter is what you are after then you are on
the right track. Use different technology or use a barren area for practice.
(b)(6)
2165

I feel that the previous environmental impact "studies" of the effect of Growler training on
Whidbey Island do NOT adequately consider the detrimental health effects of abrupt,
startling, very loud noises of operation, prolonged roaring and vibration, and late night
operations to residents of southern Lopez Island like myself. I cannot work at my desk
during episodes of this extremely loud and upsetting noise. I have owned my property for
38 years and this was not a problem until the past year, when the unacceptable noise
increased in both volume, startling effect, and duration.
(b)(6)
2166

My home is on a seven acre property on the Quimper Peninsula with 600 feet of
waterfront on the Straits of Juan de Fuca. I pay $10,000 annual property taxes. My
property value will seriously decline with the addition of 36 Growler aircraft to Naval Air
Station Whidbey Island, which will fly over my property into the Olympic National Forest
to electromagnetic targets. The Navy has a responsibility to protect the property of US
citizens.
(b)(6)
2167
anacortes, WA 98221
I am opposed to the expansion. The noise level at times, many times late evening and
early night is very disruptive to rest and relaxation. Conversation has to be stopped,
unable to hear radio or TV, not uncommon to feel the vibrations, and definitely increases
my heart rate and blood pressure when I am trying to sleep. I wonder what it does to
wildlife. I had hoped for a peaceful environment to retire after many long years of high
stress work.
(b)(6)
2168
Anonomyous, WA 98331
I think this proposed project should be stopped! There are people living w/ in this area
and it creates a health danger. These people would become victims of this weapon due
to proximity. It would destroy the environment: plants die when exposed to smart meters,
wifi and heavy power lines. 3% to 5% of the population is electrosensitive and can not
tolerate normal frequencies, let alone something like what you are proposing: this would
be in violation of the ADA. This would also have an adverse effect on those that have
existing neurological, heart and other medical conditions. Please do not allow this to
happen, as it is a danger to the public and the environment.
(b)(6)
2169
Langley, WA 98260-8300
I read the newspapers and see all the "fuss" being made by the opponents of keeping the
training airfield just outside Coupeville. I also know that field has been where it is for a
very long time--long before all the "complainers" arrived and started vocalizing their
objections. Frankly, all their complaints do not merit serious consideration or change by
NAS. I do not support the complainers; and, I do strongly encourage the NAS people to
stand-their-ground and keep this vital training facility exactly where it is, now. Do not be
bamboozeled into moving the airfield and relocating it; then, making us (the taxpayers)
(b)(6)
pay for a new landing site.
11/27/2014 Langley, WA
(b)(6)
2170

Hi. I was born and raised on Lopez Island, now in my mid-forties, I spend part of each
year on the island (around 3 months) and maintain close ties there with my parents and
friends. Our home is on the south end of Lopez. The incredibly intrusive jet noise is so
bad that at times while working on writing in my cabin (I'm a university professor), I
couldn't even concentrate. There are so many times where I've run outside and
screamed back at the sky because the sound seems to be enveloping me in a giant
vibrating roar. This is usually worse on cloudy days. I've called the hotline a few times (I
don't have a large amount of trust that anyone cares if I call) and they come up with
excuses like how the cloud cover magnifies the sound, that the jets aren't actually lower.
Do you know how often it's cloudy? Technology is constantly improving. So improve it.
Make quiet planes. If you can't, use simulators, fly very high, fly seldom, and consider
moving someplace far away from people. The jet noise has only been getting worse, not
better. I would like the scoping to specifically look at what is called 'startle' effect or
reactions. The noise is often SUDDEN and INTENSE. With no advance warning to have
these sudden extreme noise events makes it very hard to concentrate or enjoy basic
quality of life.
(b)(6)
2171

I'm a Mid-40s resident of Lopez either full or part time for the past 44 years. I need this
scoping to address the issue of how the jet noise impacts sleep. My husband and I have
been startled awake so many times by the jets. My husband will start cursing and yelling,
the dishes on the shelf are vibrating, glasses are clinking together-- and this can happen
in the middle of the night or the early morning! This is totally ridiculous! Am I supposed to
take sleep medication to sleep through this? People don't live in beautiful and natural
areas to cope with uneducated children playing war games at 5 a.m.
(b)(6)
2172

We live on Camano Island in the flight path of many of the a/c from WINAS and enjoy
hearing the a/c pass overhead. The noise is apparent but not an issue for us and is
welcome. Moreover, the expansion of WINAS is most welcome as a training base for our
Navy as well as a positive economic impact on our county. WINAS is the biggest
employer in our county, the biggest source of new folks to our county AND MOST
WELCOME IN ALL ASPECTS. The expansion of WINAS to alternatives 3 or 4 is desired.
(b)(6)
2173

I am against using the Olympic National Forest as Naval wargame training grounds, not
only for the flying of the warplanes, but for the testing of electronic warfare.
(b)(6)
2174

Your growler practice sessions over Lopez are extremely NOISY, as you are no doubt
aware. While it is obvious that pilots need to train, it does seem that a) more could be
done on flight simulators; and b)flights after 10pm could be banned. I feel like our house
has been the target of numerous strafe attacks at small hours in the morning. The sound
is deafening! I know you have heard from others regarding the environmental impact of
these many flights. I support those points as well. You people should be smart enough to
make our defense needs compatible with other values we cherish as well. At least, give it
a try. After all, our tax dollars are involved. Thanks.
(b)(6)
2175
COUPEVILLE, WA 98239
I favor the "NO ACTION" Alternative. As a retired military flyer, I understand the need for
the OLF and training flights. However, I do not favor increasing above the current number
of operations, especially given the higher levels of noise generated by the F-18G aircraft.
(b)(6)
2176
Seattle, WA 98112
I am writing to urge you to not add growler jets to the already busy skies above
Coupeville, WA. I have a home in admiral's cove, and it is unbearable as it currently
stands. Adding jets will make life for people and animals less bearable. My anxiety is
high, my hearing is impacted, and I worry about a jet crashing into my home (as jets have
crashed recently in other parts of the us). Whidbey island is too populated for this kind of
activity. It would be best to relocate these practices to a more isolated area. Thank you.
(b)(6)
2177
I have lived at this address in Admiral's Cove for the past 14 years. I live under the final
approach pattern of your practice sessions at OLF Coupeville. When the jets pass my
house, it is not unusual to be able to see the pilots in the cockpit. The monstrous noise
and the fear of an imminent crash has elevated my blood pressure, and I have developed
Moderate Hearing Loss directly attrituable to this practice which has accelerated over the
last few years. My property value has decreased because of this and I cannot sell my
house. I am not alone in this. I respectfully ask that you relocate your maneuvers to an
alternate venue, and allow us, including our children, to have a decent standard of living.
Thank you.
(b)(6)
2178

We moved here 15 years ago because of the peace and quiet. We live on the west side
of Lopez Island. The growlers are so loud one has to stop talking. Why do they need to
fly over LAND? Fly over the water. NASWI is located in a populated area. Why not locate
the Growler training in a less populated area? If we cannot enjoy the wildlife and quiet
due to these planes, our property is not worth as much. This property is our retirement
investment and we need the money.
(b)(6)
2179

I support the proposed action to increase VAQ operations and the size of the Growler
fleet at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. It is in the best interests of the citizenry that VAQ
units be well equipped and well trained, and I am proud to be able to see some of those
operations from my home. In addition, the presence of these operations at NAS WI
requires a robust helicopter SAR unit, which has proven frequently beneficial to the
population of the surrounding area by performing mountain evacuations and even
standard medevac flights when civilian rotorcraft are unwilling to fly.
(b)(6)
2180

I am 100% in favor of bring more Growlers to NAS Whidbey. This will help improve the
local economy with increased spending in Oak Harbor and the surrounding area, as well
as the construction of additional or new infrastructure that will be required on base. I am
also 100% in favor of continuing and if necessary increasing the use of OLF Coupeville
for training operations. I am also 100% in favor of the proposed use of mobile electronic
emitters out on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula in order to provide enhanced &
more realistic training of the aircrews who may be sent into harms way on our behalf. Go
Navy!!
(b)(6)
2181

(b)(6)
I am
with my family who live on the north end of Lopez Island. In the last
three years there has been an increase in the noise and frequency from the "Growlers."
Peace in the landscape is disappearing. There are moments when I can not focus with
the noise from the "Growlers." Could there be some mitigation of this obtrusion? At a
minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully considered. All selected
mitigation measures should be included in the Record of Decision (ROD) along with
timelines for completion. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island should
minimize routes over populated areas including San Juan County to the greatest extent
possible. b) Growler training flights over populated areas including San Juan County
should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c) Afterburners should not be used on Growler
training flights over North Puget Sound. d) A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House
should be used for noise suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups and
testing. e) Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric
F414 engines used on the Growlers. f) Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training
operations at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP), Controlled
Carrier Approaches (CCAs), takeoffs and engine run-up. Would the military subject
citizens of Seattle to this? Are we lesser citizens?
(b)(6)
2182

Thank you for informing us of your agenda. I now realize I am residing daily outdoors
(b)(6)
directly under one of your flight paths, usually before Landing. (
Lopez
Island) I see and realize the harsh noise impact on me and my farm animals(chickens,
goats, cat) is largely impart of flying "Dirty". The Landing gear and Laps in a "high" Drag
position cause need for more fuel, more noise. If there was any way you could minimize
this safety buffer of early dirty flying, it may spare me and my farm animals our hearing
and normal suffering do to this practice. (b)(6)
Thank you for Listening, if you are still able to
hear. Sincerely your upstanding citizen,
(b)(6)
2183
Lopez, WA 98261
One reason for the concern about the Growler flights is that they pass over southern
Lopez Island (in fact, directly over my house). At the Scoping Meeting held on Lopez
Island December 3rd I was told the flight patterns could not be adjusted away from the
island is that the FAA does now allow them to be moved further out over the Strait of
Juan de Fuca. Has an investigation occurred to determine if the FAA would consider
modifying this restriction? Can commercial flights be moved westward to provide a
different space for the Growler flights?
(b)(6)
2184
(b)(6)
Hi, my name is
and I am the sales manager at StarSEO Marketing. I was just
looking at your website and see that your website has the potential to become very
popular. I just want to tell you, In case you didn't already know... There is a website
network which already has more than 16 million users, and the majority of the users are
looking for niches like yours. By getting your website on this service you have a chance
to get your site more visitors than you can imagine. It is free to sign up and you can read
more about it here: http://doo.lu/hqrz3 - Now, let me ask you... Do you need your site to
be successful to maintain your way of life? Do you need targeted traffic who are
interested in the services and products you offer? Are looking for exposure, to increase
sales, and to quickly develop awareness for your website? If your answer is YES, you
can achieve these things only if you get your website on the network I am describing.
This traffic network advertises you to thousands, while also giving you a chance to test
the service before paying anything. All the popular websites are using this network to
boost their readership and ad revenue! Why arent you? And what is better than traffic? Its
recurring traffic! That's how running a successful site works... Here's to your success!
Read more here: http://emedikon.com/go/uddaz
(b)(6)
2185

I live at the highest elevation in Port Townsend and the noise from the planes is
deafening. I can't carry on a conversation in my home or watch TV without yelling or
turning up the volume to a ridiculous level. I have lived in takeoff patterns of a major
airport and it is exactly the same. I cannot go to bed until after midnite because the
planes do not stop before that time. I moved to a quiet rural place after 1 1/2 years of
searching for a reitrment place and made sure I wasn't near any large airport or air facility
in my county. Aside from my personal distress which I assure you is serious, I am more
outraged about your plans to desecrate he pristine wilderness of the Olympic Natl Park
with even more of this obnoxious and thouhtless pollution of the air and quiet. Animals
are even more sensiive to sound than humans and this is a true violation of the safety
and health of a park created to preserve these features. I urge you to rethink this whole
approach and fly somehere else a different direction from your base. This is an invasion! I
didn't move to the back of beyond to live is what sounds like a war zone. I don't care what
your reasons are; get out of my life.
(b)(6)
2186

(b)(6)
2187

(b)(6)
2188
I fully support the USN im the mattter of keeping OLF open for operational training.
COER is a small group of selfish residents that must be defeated if legal pursuit is taken
(b)(6)
2189

I am writing to request a HARD COPY of the EIS be sent to me when it is completed.
Please, and thank you.
(b)(6)
2190

Dear sirs, I support your project to advance the air power of the United States Navy. I am
a past serviceman, and served my time in Vietnam Nam in the late 1960's. I will never
forget the secure feeling during those years of the sound of a fighter jet , knowing that the
air support was for us , the men on the ground. I remember your Prowlers skimming over
my house at port Ludlow ,sometimes so near I could make out the pilot's outline at the
controls .I don't see Prowlers anymore ,but I am looking forward to seeing your Growlers.
To me ,the true meaning of our American Freedom is represented ,when is see one of
our beautiful military aircraft slicing through the atmosphere. Whidbey Island is a beautiful
place , and the US Navy only adds to our Freedom to enjoy our lives in the greatest
country in the world. I pray for the safety of our military people and also know your
EA-18G Airfield Operations are part of our Amercan Tradition to be the keepers of peace
and freedom in our sometimes sad world. GO NAVY! R. B. Crittenden E-4 utilitiesman
Seabees P.S. I still wish I could serve at close to age 70.
(b)(6)
2191

Please do not add more Growlers. The noise level is way beyond acceptable as it is now.
It is as if we were in a war zone. And pilots from foreign countries will use Whidbey? That
makes no sense. If such operations are necessary cannot you move them to a remote
area like Nevada? Please stop the noise, and do not add any more Growlers.
(b)(6)
2192

A note to who reads this as a public comment: I would like to stress that the enormous
turnout from the Port Angeles public hearing alone should be a clue that we need to have
more discussion around this. While I understand this is not presenting questions in a
blatantly substantive or scientific way, when I submitted this poem in written form, I
bolded my questions at least to make them easy to find. Thank you for considering them
among others in this comment period. Also, this was written concerning the Electronic
Warfare Range Environmental Assessment by the Forest Service, and I understand this
issue and expanding the growler fleet are being separated, but I am under the impression
the jets are also meant to be equipped with electromagnetic weaponry, so In addition
to the questions below, I would like to stress that we need to work together on this, and
working together means we do not use unequal power to move things along that require
more consideration. Im grateful our questions are being considered. More public forums
are necessary because as far as I notice, no one is informed enough to understand the
full consequences of this on either side. I'm sure I am grossly ignorant to a lot of things,
but when things feel so powerless and grim, all we can do is stand in our own truth.
2014-11-25 War Games on the Olympic Peninsula My primary question is as simple as
this: What are your questions, as youve been thinking about this? Im scared for the
mammals, the plants, birds, and bees, and for the people who are meant to operate
these things. Meanwhile Dumb and Dumber advertised as the next fling while we get
dumb and dumber trying to fight this thing. No news on the news helping us free our
lives, teaching us old skills, or about honeybee hives. Were supposed to tune out and
remain clueless BUT THIS IS OUR LIFE AND WE SHOULDNT DO THIS. I dont want to
fight you. I dont want to fight this. Im tired of fighting. and all this craziness. Im tired of
living in a culture that tells me its more important to know whos who than my own true
tellings. Why are you training for war games when the world as we know it is already at
ends? When you start from scratch and think of your life, how would you design it? What
would it be like? What is possible for Life on Earth? Why are you training for war games
when the war brings death, destruction, and mental health illness? Whats your
predictions about all the things that could go wrong? Do you have a strategy for dealing
with problems? Why are you training for war games when you dont even know all the
consequences? Dont you want to understand all the consequences? Dont you? I feel
like none of us know the full story not me or you. Only this radiation can deform living
tissue from hundreds of yards away And send all the flying creatures from their pathways
astray. How do you plan to take care of the people who participate in this thing? Are they
still stuck in a video game with a controller in hand? Or will they be given an
understanding of exactly what theyre doing to the land? Will their childrens forests be
just toxic waste? Will my children be able to commune with this place? The land that We
live on., within which Our families survive. EVERYTHING comes from the Earth, in
connection with all creatures, low and high. This isnt a fantasy. This isnt a game. This
isnt about hit points and most number of kills. This is real life, and where is your training
program for that? Where is your war game for the game of PTSD? Where is your war
game for learning how to be Free? Where is your war game for learning to speak the
Truth? Where is your war game for domenstic abuse? Did you know that with veterans
it is out the roof? Violence against women and children, I mean. More of it is done by
those who come back from war than every person weve killed on the other shore. More
deaths and beatings at home than those we wish to demonize on a far away show. And
dont worry I know you dont care about this. This has nothing to do with
electromagnetics. The kind that control our bloods circulation And the pathways of all
creatures that live in Creation. How do the currents change mycelial networks? How do
they affect those with illness does it get worse? How do they affect the things we cant
see with our eyes? How can we work together instead of the game of truth or lies?
How do you account for pollution from extra traffic? And the factories that make all of
these planes and tanks in? And alright, Ive got a question for you: what will you do when
you look up and the sky is no longer blue? The horizon washed out from metals we burn
into the sky and I know youre not interested in talking about planes. I think that strategy
is lame. Youve supposedly got a one track mind for the problem with trucks never mind
all the growlers, you dont give a fuck. It doesnt matter the horrendous noise. It doesnt
matter the pollution they bring. To you, it doesnt mean a thing. But I challenge you, and
this culture of thought: THESE THINGS ARE NOT SEPARATE, each existing in their
own tidy box. All things are connected, you cant drive these dangeous tanks without the
planes in the sky to follow their flanks. WE NEED YOU and your hearts and your heads
to do what you LOVE instead of just what was said. The time has come to stop following
orders, to find in your heart how YOU want to move forward. Why must war continue
when all we really want is to breathe and be led to grow into who we came here to
become? To share in the grief, the connection, and hugs. To smell sweet vegetables and
meat on the stove, and to fall in Love with the Song of our Home. Today I was so mad.
Im a builder, and the screws were stripping my anger and exhaustion were back and
forth flipping. Some days stripped screws just makes me laugh, but today youre also
bearing the brunt of my wrath. Ive got a deadline at the weeks end but its all in my mind,
the tasks I created I can give them up just as easy as they began. Its a choice, and I
choose it, every day that I am to dedicate myself to my Lifes true work some days I dont
know what it is and it hurts. But I guarantee you Ive worked harder than most and for that
I am proud of and content to boast. Security guards paid a very high wage and many of
them are just cracked up on cocaine, but what more are they to do? No one ever asked
them what theyd do if they looked up and the sky was no longer blue. No one ever told
them they could make a difference. That it was okay to cry and there was a place for
belligerence. Im not trying to say theres no place for war. Im only trying to say as
Humans we already have it in scores. There is a tension that lives inside of each and
every person in all humankind. There is a place for fighting, a place for anger, and tears,
but the direction were going, its too far here. Its not balanced with a respect for
ANYTHING to be frank. Its just about turning the same damn war machine crank.
People murder for money all the time Why has money become so important to their
minds? Because Culture told them they needed it to survive. Who does this benefit? Tell
me that, and where the money leads you, Better Questions YOU MUST ASK. Because
youre the ones who are meant to fight that battle. Youre in the middle of it and you have
the best perspective on how to navigate that shithole of directives. The projects we need
are not more destruction. The projects we need are regeneration. We need better
buildings, less roads, and more trees. Better systems of governance and integrity among
our police. We better judgement in general, and far less rules, We need better food, and
hand tools, and schools the kind of bonding that comes from fighting together in war is
not taken away when you work on these projects more. There is not a lack for things to
do. What is best for your Life? Youre the one with the best clue. Not some hero, or
2192
bureaucrat, or chief officer. You are the one to design your lifes posture. My primary
question remains as simple as this: What are your questions, as youve been thinking
about this? And I cant believe we even have to protest this shit.
2192
(b)(6)
2193

I am writing with concern of the increased growler traffic. I do not believe that there has
been an adequate study on its effect of the Nationally Recognized One Square Inch of
Silence in the Hoh. Or the effect of such noise on our birds or children. Part of the reason
I moved here from New York was for the silence. I have PTSD and background noise is a
contributing factor increasing stress that makes it hard to heal from traumatic events.
Many of the people I know in Port Townsend have come here to heal. I am also
concerned that you are not following the NEPA process by separating out all the pieces
so that you can say there isn't much impact. But when you take into account what is
already going on and the proposed EW on the West Coast along with your proposal to
increase Growler traffic with more flights directly over the towns and national park and
forest of the Olympic Peninsula - then yes there is a huge impact. I have greatly enjoyed
the quiet of the last few days - and it has reminded me of what you are taking from all of
us. You are diminishing the quality of life of those you are theoretically protecting. And in
the process you are spending so much of our carbon footprint that you are gauranteening
a future that is radically different than today - endangering all that I value.
(b)(6)
2194
Anacortes, WA 98221
Please consider the following in completing the EIS for EA-18G Growler Airfield
Operations at NAS Whidbey Island: 1) Consider the effect of on-base aircraft engine
testing on noise and pollution. Consider building sound walls to direct the noise upwards,
out to sea, or to absorb some of the noise. 2) Consider the impact of the Navys presence
on local property value. 3) Consider notifying the public surrounding and downwind of a
fuel dumping incident in a timely manner. 4)Make transparent to the public the location,
frequency, and environmental impacts of fuel dumping. 5) Consider the Day / Night Noise
level increase by adding up to 44% more Growlers with the proportional increase in flight
noise generated. 6) Consider the increase of single event noise violations by increasing
aircraft flyovers above private land. Compare to OSHA noise standards for noise levels
tolerated without hearing damage. Or compare to other appropriate noise regulatory
standards established to safeguard the public. 7) Consider Lmax jet noise occurrences
incident to private property. Do these noise levels exceed regulated limits? How would an
increase in the Growler population at NAS Whidbey affect these noise violations? 8)
Consider the noise and pollution tolerance limits of the community. Increased flight
capacity is not only a function of runway capacity, maintenance facilities, and staff
housing available. Increasing aircraft overflights also affects the community surrounding
the Navy facilities. Understanding the sociological limits for this community is important;
there is likely a threshold tolerance. 9) Consider the Navys lack of compliance to
regulations established by the FAA such as for aircraft speed (91.117) and minimum
safe altitude (91.119) that other aircraft must comply with. Provide justification for the
Navys choice to violate standards that all others must obey. Is collateral damage
acceptable to the Navy? Are pilots monitored and reprimanded for speed, altitude and
safety violations? Are these restrictions part of instructions of training, and repeated
often? Please make these reprimands transparent to the public, including the details. 10)
How would each of the proposed Growler increases affect air traffic from Ault Field and
Coupeville? Provide flight path use and frequency for each. Route over water whenever
possible. 11) Consider safety: History shows that accidents do happen. The potential for
large loss of life in the built up area surrounding NAS Whidbey is very real. Route aircraft
over water whenever possible (note, not necessarily whenever convenient). Consider
compliance with altitude and speed regulations. They both contribute to safety. 12)
Consider the environmental impact of the proposed Growler increase, such as wetlands
loss, commuter pollution, and aircraft pollution. 17) Finally, consider carefully the impact
of aircraft noise and pollution upon the surrounding community. What are the limits of
noise, safety and pollution that are tolerated by our community? Monitor on-the-ground
SEL and Lmax noise levels, not just the Day Night Average. Consider the history of
activism in opposition to Navy intrusion to the lives of those in the surrounding
community. The Navy may be close to a larger societal tolerance threshold. Consider law
suits. Consider the noise impact upon children in and out of schools. Consider the Navys
appropriate and timely contribution to the community (vehicle registration fees, sales tax,
property tax, impact fees paid to schools). Be transparent about NAS Whidbey changes
over time (overflights, noise, pollution, and environmental), and how the proposed
Growler increase would affect the community. History demonstrates that a strong
defense is a successful deterrent against the aggressive actions by our enemies. But
please accomplish this strong defense with a minimum collateral damage to the US
citizens you are protecting. Thank you.
2194
(b)(6)
2195

NO added growlers! Noise impact on local community, people and wildlife. Added risk for
the community for potential for plane crashes; the base as a target from other countries;
escalates the potential for war, rather than de-escalating for peace!
(b)(6)
2196

I am 100 percent in favor of our military plnes practicing and flying on Whidbey. I used to
live directly behind the Island Transit facility. I am well aware of the noise that is overhead
when they are practicing their skills to serve our nation.When we moved from that
location, the noise was not even a consideration in our decision.I wish we still had the
sign on highway 20 that read, PARDON OUR NOISE, IT THE SOUND OF FREEDOM.
(b)(6)
2197

Our objections and those of most of the people we met at the scoping process is not with
the proposed expansion of the EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Whidbey Island but
with the operations as they exist at the present time, any expansion of which will only
increase the negative impact that they now have. It seems like the Navy's EIS of the
present operations did not foresee these negative impacts on the people in the area and
the environment. We would request that there be no expansion in this area and that the
present operations be examined on how they can be improved to lessen the negative
effects. These effects are not minor because it is changing the lives of people.
(b)(6)
2198

I live on the South end of Lopez Island. The increasing noise levels from the Growler jets
has become an increasing problem to the quality of life. I hope there will be efforts made
to minimize the noise levels over populated areas.
(b)(6)
2199
nordland, WA 98358
I have lived at my present address for 25 years. A large part of my reason for choosing
this as my home is to avoid noise. The more frequent overflights of military practice has a
very negative effect on the quality of life for me. I can not accept the Navy must ruin the
quality of life for so many.
(b)(6)
2200
You need targeted traffic to your Environmental Impact Statement for the EA-18G
Growler Airfield Operations website so why not try some for free? There is a VERY
POWERFUL and POPULAR company out there who now lets you try their traffic service
for 7 days free of charge. I am so glad they opened their traffic system back up to the
public! Sign up before it is too late: http://nrw.li/8
(b)(6)
2201
,
Do not allow the radicalist COER to bully their way into affecting flight operations at NAS
Whidbey. They have been proven to be using lies, on multiple occasions, along with the
bullying to get their message heard, which is the minority. The mostly silent MAJORITY
appreciates the Navy's presence on Whidbey Island and welcomes more.
(b)(6)
2202

www.whidbeyeis.com EA-18G EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineer Command
Atlantic 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS Here is partial
list of my concerns regarding Growler jets. I want these concerns and answers to the
questions raised to appear in the EIS. Thank you, (b)(6)
Jet noise: 1. In both
wildlife and humans, effects from loud noise can include hearing loss, increased stress
hormones, cardiovascular disease, immune system compromise and psychosocial
impacts. Considering that you propose to fly trios of Growler jets as low as 1200 feet
above ground level at some higher elevations, what studies have you completed on the
effects that the resulting noise will have on the people, domestic animals, and wildlife
living in the area? If none, why not? 2. At a recent public meeting in Pacific Beach a Navy
representative told the crowd, We fly at 6000 feet above sea level, and you wont hear
us if its raining or the wind is blowing. Has the Navy established accurate noise levels
for the expected flyovers of Growlers flying in formations of three, at 6000 feet when its
not raining and the wind is not blowing? If not, when does the Navy anticipate having
these for the public? 3. By the Navys own figures, a jet flying at 1000 feet produces 113
decibels, which is well above the 85-decibel threshold for hearing damage. That figure is
based on older, less noisy jets and therefore doesnt include the new EA-18G Growler
jets, which can generate 150 decibels. Growler noise was measured by a sound
professional hired by the citizens of Whidbey Island, and found to be louder than the
Prowlers they are replacing. The Fish and Wildlife Services Biological Opinion of 2010 is
based on old noise level estimates from other jets, and cannot be considered valid for the
expanded operations with newer, louder aircraft. Have you calculated the noise levels
generated by THREE Growlers flying in the expected formations of three at a time, at
various altitudes from 6000 down to 1200 feet? If not, do you plan to do so? If not, why
not? 4. Does the Navy plan to continue its method of establishing jet noise levels by
placing an engine on a test platform, turning it on, measuring the noise, running it through
a computer and averaging it out over a year of quiet days to arrive at a day-night
average? Why does the Navy not measure noise made by real jets, or include
measurements of the considerable extra noise produced by afterburners, landing gear,
flaps, and speed brakes in their published noise levels? Do you plan to correct this
information? If not, why not? 5. How will you conduct this training without overflying the
Olympic National Park? A National Park Service report issued in July 2014 showed that
in 2013, 3,085,340 visitors to Olympic National Park spent $245,894,100 in communities
near the park. That spending supported 2,993 jobs in the local area. Have you studied
the economic effect these flights and the radiation will have on the tourism industry on the
Olympic Peninsula? Do you plan to do so? If not, why not? Have you analyzed the effects
on the wilderness soundscape in Olympic National Park? If not, why not? 6. At one
public meeting a citizen testified that she knew of several people who were waiting to buy
real estate until they knew whether or not the Navy would be carrying out its warfare
training plans. Have you met with County Commissioners or city officials or community
leaders, including real estate professionals, to discuss potential economic impacts in their
communities? Do you plan to do this? If not, why not? 7. Have you studied the effect
these flights will have on property values on the Olympic Peninsula? Do you plan to do
so? If not, why not? 8. Although Navy pilots are reportedly not allowed to go supersonic
over land, how do you explain the fact that sonic booms loud enough to shake houses
and upset residents as well as domestic and wild animals are being experienced in some
communities, particularly on the western shore of the Olympic Peninsula? 9. Considering
that some residents of Vancouver Island in Canada have been noticing and complaining
about the increased jet noise in an area famous for its peace and quiet, has the Navy
consulted with Canadian authorities on the increase in jet noise? 10. The Navy already
has 4 locations within easy reach of Whidbey Island in which to practice electronic
warfare training, and it regularly conducts such training there. These include bases at
Fallon, Mountain Home, the Oregon Boardman Range, and Yakima. These comprise
more than half a million acres and 20,000 miles of airspace for electronic warfare training.
Why, if no required proof has been given by the Navy that this training cannot be
accomplished anywhere else, do you need this pristine quiet area, which includes a
World Heritage Site and the most outstanding example of temperate rainforest in the
United States? 11. The Olympic Military Operating Area has long been established, but
the Navy has significantly increased its operations in recent years. What is your plan to
mitigate effects on the Olympic National Park and other public and private lands that line
the entire coast under your Military Operating Area? If you have no mitigation plan, are
you developing one? If not, why not? 12. One billion birds fly up and down the Pacific
Coast Flyway each year. The effects of loud noise and electromagnetic radiation on their
ability to find resting places and to navigate has not been analyzed by the Navy, nor has
it consulted other agencies for analyses. Does the Navy intend to study this and provide
the results of those studies to the public? If not, why not? 13. The marbled murrelet, a
small seabird threatened with extinction, declined in population by 26 percent between
2002 and 2009. You are required to use the best available science to assess the effects
of loud noise, chronic radiation and electromagnetic disruption on endangered species.
Do you intend to do these studies or consult with other agencies on endangered species
issues that have come up since the Biological Opinion was issued in 2010? If not, why
not? 14. What does the Navy plan to do about mitigating the harm its activities will cause
to the commercial and recreational fishing industries off the coast of the Olympic
Peninsula? Are you developing a plan? If not, why not? The Navys public process: 1. No
public notices were published in any media that directly serve the northern and western
Olympic Peninsula. In the absence of public comment, the Navy issued its Environmental
Assessment in September and produced an official Finding of No Significant Impact.
The public sees this issue as a whole the jets, the truck-based emitters, the electronic
weapons in jets, the radiation, the noise, the pollution. But only the impacts from truck
wheels on Forest Service roads were included in the Environmental Assessment. At this
scoping meeting the public is only allowed to comment on the jets at Whidbey Island, and
not the Training Range on the Olympic Peninsula. How does the Navy justify that when
its ground-based operations cannot, according to a 1988 Master Agreement, legally be
separated from its aircraft operations? 2. Why is this scoping meeting and EIS only about
potential impacts from the 36 new Growler jets, and not the entire fleet of 118 Growlers
that will be stationed at Whidbey Island? Where is the EIS on the 82 Growlers that are
already present at NASWI? They replaced 57 Prowlers, but where is the original EIS on
those Prowlers? Was one ever prepared? If not, why not? 3. What happened to the EIS
that was prepared to Draft Status in 1988 that covered ALL operations at Naval Air
Station Whidbey Island? Why was it shelved after the Draft was completed? Why have
the activities now been broken into separate processes? 4. Why are the newly-expanded
ship-based activities, including underwater weapons training, that will take place off
2202
Indian Island, in various parts of Puget Sound, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and in the
Olympic Marine Sanctuary, not included in the Navys EIS? 5. Since you are currently
scoping operations at Outlying Landing Field Coupeville related to the 36 new Growlers
you want, what are your intentions for including in your EIS the electromagnetic warfare
emitter activities at OLF? Have you ever prepared a detailed environmental analysis of
that emitter at OLF Coupeville? If so, when was it prepared, and where is it? 6. Why are
you not including the proposed electromagnetic warfare range on the Olympic Peninsula
Coast in this EIS, since those activities are directly related to these new Growlers you are
seeking to base at NASWI? 7. At another public meeting, a Navy representative cited
scheduling issues as a reason for moving the entire electronic warfare training operations
from Mountain Home, Idaho and other areas to NASWI. The Olympic Training Range
would be under the sole control of the Navy rather than another branch of the Armed
Services. Is this this reason legally valid? It has not been cited in any documents. Why
not? Electromagnetic radiation: 1. Growler jets carry a variety of extremely powerful
electronic weapons such as lasers, high-powered microwave or EMP or anti-radiation
energy in concentrated, directed beams designed, according to a Navy source document
to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of degrading, neutralizing,
or destroying enemy combat capability In addition, the Navys Environmental
Assessment states that the training in the Olympic MOA will provide full combat
readiness in electronic attack. What types of electronic attack will be practiced by these
Growler jets, and what are the potential impacts, intended or otherwise, on the local
population and the environment? 2. A supporting document referenced by the Navy,
called Joint Publication 3-13.1 says, Friendly Electronic Attack could potentially deny
essential services to a local population that, in turn, could result in loss of life and/or
political ramifications. At every public meeting the Navy has been asked by fire and
emergency rescue personnel about potential interference with or jamming of vital
communications, but no adequate answers have been given. It was also learned at the
last public meeting that no Navy personnel will be operating the mobile or fixed ground
emitters, nor could the Navy explain how these contractors would be trained. What
guarantee can the Navy give that the public will believe, that its operations will not
interfere with communications signals in communities near where it conducts its
activities? Climate change issues: 1. According to a study by a physicist from the
University of California, Berkeley, a Growler jet that burns 1304 gallons per hour
produces 12.5 metric tons of CO2 per hour. This is 23% more than the annual CO2
emissions of a Washington State citizen. In other words, you would need to drive a car
29,500 miles to produce the amount of CO2 a Growler produces in one hour. There will
be 118 Growlers stationed at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, and the Navys
Environmental Assessment states that training will last 8 16 hours per day for 260 days
per year. Has the Navy done any analysis on the effects of climate change as a magnifier
to Northwest ecosystems, or any analyses on the Navys contribution to climate change?
2. The Navy lists these two reasons for why it wants to move the entire electronic warfare
training program to the Olympic Peninsula: savings on jet fuel from not having to fly the
extra 400 miles to Mountain Home, Idaho, and more time for Navy personnel to spend
with their families because of the 45-minute savings in flight-time. At 100 million barrels of
oil per year, the US military is the worlds largest user of fossil fuel. 70 percent of that use
is jet fuel. While everyone acknowledges saving fuel is a good goal, adding at least 36
jets that burn 1304 gallons per hour hardly qualifies as a fuel-saving event. Has the Navy
done a cost analysis on jet fuel savings from not flying an extra 400 miles, versus effects
2202
on the environment? Have the Navy or the Department of Defense done any analyses of
the contribution of burning this much fossil fuel to climate change?
2202
(b)(6)
2203
The Effect of Density Altitude on Carrier Operations and FCLP training Locations. We
contend that the Navy altitude requirement for FCLP training of 200 feet or below is not a
valid requirement, because it does not consider density altitude. Density altitude is a
combination of altitude, barometric pressure, temperature and humidity. Higher
temperatures, altitude, and increased moisture reduce the density of the air. A reduction
in air density reduces the engine power, reduces aerodynamic lift and reduces drag.
Aircraft performance is based on density altitude rather than actual altitude above sea
level. An aircraft landing or taking off during high-density altitude conditions will have a
higher approach speed, longer landing roll and longer takeoff roll. So how does all this
aviation jargon affect FCLP training and carrier landings? The Navy says that they must
train as they operate in the real world and we agree. However, a few examples will
demonstrate that the training at OLF Coupeville does not closely replicate actual carrier
operations because of the density altitude factor. The first set of examples use an
average day at each location, and an FAA standard day barometric pressure of 29.92.
Data for weather conditions at each location were taken from USA.com. Airfield
elevations were taken from FAA Airfield Diagrams. Carrier elevations are calculated at
mean sea level plus 60 feet to the flight deck. Note that Persian Gulf operations have a
higher density altitude than ANY of the examples. The airfield closest in average day
density altitude to current Persian Gulf operations is El Centro CA. The airfield with the
most dissimilar density altitude is OLF Coupeville. Put another way, OLF Coupeville
provides the least realistic training of any of the other alternatives. OLF Coupeville
Altitude 200 Air Temp 51 Barometric Pressure 29.92 Dew point 35 Density Altitude 337
Lemoore NAS CA Altitude 230 Air Temp 62 Barometric Pressure 29.92 Dew point 56
Density Altitude 678 Moses Lake WA Altitude 1189 Air Temp 50 Barometric Pressure
29.92 Dew point 45 Density Altitude 1010 El Centro CA Altitude -40 Air Temp 75
Barometric Pressure 29.92 Dew point 40 Density Altitude 1284 Persian Gulf Operations
Altitude 60 Air Temp 88 Barometric Pressure 29.92 Dew point 65 Density Altitude 2182
The following examples use an average July day at each location. Again note that
Persian Gulf operations have a higher density altitude than any of the other locations.
The airfield with the closest density altitude to current combat ops is Moses Lake WA.
Moses Lake is also the closest alternate airfield to Whidbey Island. Again, OLF
Coupeville provides the least realistic training. OLF Coupeville Altitude 200 Air Temp 72
Barometric Pressure 29.92 Dew point 35 Density Altitude 337 Lemoore NAS CA Altitude
230 Air Temp 80 Barometric Pressure 29.92 Dew point 76 Density Altitude 1691 El
Centro CA Altitude -40 Air Temp 92 Barometric Pressure 29.92 Dew point 90 Density
Altitude 2132 Moses Lake WA Altitude 1189 Air Temp 83 Barometric Pressure 29.92
Dew point 71 Density Altitude 2770 Persian Gulf Operations Flight Deck Altitude 60 Air
Temp 96 Barometric Pressure 29.92 Dew point 78 Density Altitude 2817
(b)(6)
2204
Albuquerque, NM 87111
(b)(6)
2205

The Olympic peninsula is a highly sensitive and significant national resource. It's use as a
military training area is rediculous. Use your Idaho holding, make it work, that is the right
thing to do.
(b)(6)
2206
Port Angeles, WA 98362

I object to the plan for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at NAS Whidbey Island
because of the impact those operations will have on the environment and inhabitants of
the Olympic Peninsula. The Olympic Peninsula is a gem, and a place of it's kind is not
found anywhere else. It is a peaceful place to commune with nature, and a legacy to pass
on to our children. The people of the U.S. choose to fund the Navy in order to protect our
peaceful way of life. It's very important to ensure that mission is accomplished. Since the
proposed operations over the Olympic Peninsula would disturb the peace for the visitors
and inhabitants of the Olympic Peninsula, the proposed operations must not take place
here. Additionally, residents and visitors on the Olympic Peninsula should not be
subjected to the unknown effects of the equipment planned for use in the operations.
(b)(6)
2207
PORT Townsend, WA 98368

Jet noise: 1. In both wildlife and humans, effects from loud noise can include hearing
loss, increased stress hormones, cardiovascular disease, immune system compromise
and psychosocial impacts. Considering that you propose to fly trios of Growler jets as low
as 1200 feet above ground level at some higher elevations, what studies have you
completed on the effects that the resulting noise will have on the people, domestic
animals, and wildlife living in the area? If none, why not? 2. At a recent public meeting in
Pacific Beach a Navy representative told the crowd, We fly at 6000 feet above sea level,
and you wont hear us if its raining or the wind is blowing. Has the Navy established
accurate noise levels for the expected flyovers of Growlers flying in formations of three, at
6000 feet when its not raining and the wind is not blowing? If not, when does the Navy
anticipate having these for the public? 3. By the Navys own figures, a jet flying at 1000
feet produces 113 decibels, which is well above the 85-decibel threshold for hearing
damage. That figure is based on older, less noisy jets and therefore doesnt include the
new EA-18G Growler jets, which can generate 150 decibels. Growler noise was
measured by a sound professional hired by the citizens of Whidbey Island, and found to
be louder than the Prowlers they are replacing. The Fish and Wildlife Services Biological
Opinion of 2010 is based on old noise level estimates from other jets, and cannot be
considered valid for the expanded operations with newer, louder aircraft. Have you
calculated the noise levels generated by THREE Growlers flying in the expected
formations of three at a time, at various altitudes from 6000 down to 1200 feet? If not, do
you plan to do so? If not, why not? 4. Does the Navy plan to continue its method of
establishing jet noise levels by placing an engine on a test platform, turning it on,
measuring the noise, running it through a computer and averaging it out over a year of
quiet days to arrive at a day-night average? Why does the Navy not measure noise
made by real jets, or include measurements of the considerable extra noise produced by
afterburners, landing gear, flaps, and speed brakes in their published noise levels? Do
you plan to correct this information? If not, why not? 5. How will you conduct this training
without overflying the Olympic National Park? A National Park Service report issued in
July 2014 showed that in 2013, 3,085,340 visitors to Olympic National Park spent
$245,894,100 in communities near the park. That spending supported 2,993 jobs in the
local area. Have you studied the economic effect these flights and the radiation will have
on the tourism industry on the Olympic Peninsula? Do you plan to do so? If not, why not?
Have you analyzed the effects on the wilderness soundscape in Olympic National Park?
If not, why not? 6. At one public meeting a citizen testified that she knew of several
people who were waiting to buy real estate until they knew whether or not the Navy would
be carrying out its warfare training plans. Have you met with County Commissioners or
city officials or community leaders, including real estate professionals, to discuss
potential economic impacts in their communities? Do you plan to do this? If not, why not?
7. Have you studied the effect these flights will have on property values on the Olympic
Peninsula? Do you plan to do so? If not, why not? 8. Although Navy pilots are reportedly
not allowed to go supersonic over land, how do you explain the fact that sonic booms
loud enough to shake houses and upset residents as well as domestic and wild animals
are being experienced in some communities, particularly on the western shore of the
Olympic Peninsula? 9. Considering that some residents of Vancouver Island in Canada
have been noticing and complaining about the increased jet noise in an area famous for
its peace and quiet, has the Navy consulted with Canadian authorities on the increase in
jet noise? 10. The Navy already has 4 locations within easy reach of Whidbey Island in
which to practice electronic warfare training, and it regularly conducts such training there.
These include bases at Fallon, Mountain Home, the Oregon Boardman Range, and
Yakima. These comprise more than half a million acres and 20,000 miles of airspace for
electronic warfare training. Why, if no required proof has been given by the Navy that this
training cannot be accomplished anywhere else, do you need this pristine quiet area,
which includes a World Heritage Site and the most outstanding example of temperate
rainforest in the United States? 11. The Olympic Military Operating Area has long been
established, but the Navy has significantly increased its operations in recent years. What
is your plan to mitigate effects on the Olympic National Park and other public and private
lands that line the entire coast under your Military Operating Area? If you have no
mitigation plan, are you developing one? If not, why not? 12. One billion birds fly up and
down the Pacific Coast Flyway each year. The effects of loud noise and electromagnetic
radiation on their ability to find resting places and to navigate has not been analyzed by
the Navy, nor has it consulted other agencies for analyses. Does the Navy intend to study
this and provide the results of those studies to the public? If not, why not? 13. The
marbled murrelet, a small seabird threatened with extinction, declined in population by 26
percent between 2002 and 2009. You are required to use the best available science to
assess the effects of loud noise, chronic radiation and electromagnetic disruption on
endangered species. Do you intend to do these studies or consult with other agencies on
endangered species issues that have come up since the Biological Opinion was issued in
2010? If not, why not? 14. What does the Navy plan to do about mitigating the harm its
activities will cause to the commercial and recreational fishing industries off the coast of
the Olympic Peninsula? Are you developing a plan? If not, why not? The Navys public
process: 1. No public notices were published in any media that directly serve the northern
and western Olympic Peninsula. In the absence of public comment, the Navy issued its
Environmental Assessment in September and produced an official Finding of No
Significant Impact. The public sees this issue as a whole the jets, the truck-based
emitters, the electronic weapons in jets, the radiation, the noise, the pollution. But only
the impacts from truck wheels on Forest Service roads were included in the
Environmental Assessment. At this scoping meeting the public is only allowed to
comment on the jets at Whidbey Island, and not the Training Range on the Olympic
Peninsula. How does the Navy justify that when its ground-based operations cannot,
according to a 1988 Master Agreement, legally be separated from its aircraft operations?
2. Why is this scoping meeting and EIS only about potential impacts from the 36 new
Growler jets, and not the entire fleet of 118 Growlers that will be stationed at Whidbey
Island? Where is the EIS on the 82 Growlers that are already present at NASWI? They
replaced 57 Prowlers, but where is the original EIS on those Prowlers? Was one ever
prepared? If not, why not? 3. What happened to the EIS that was prepared to Draft
Status in 1988 that covered ALL operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island? Why
was it shelved after the Draft was completed? Why have the activities now been broken
into separate processes? 4. Why are the newly-expanded ship-based activities, including
underwater weapons training, that will take place off Indian Island, in various parts of
Puget Sound, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and in the Olympic Marine Sanctuary, not
included in the Navys EIS? 5. Since you are currently scoping operations at Outlying
Landing Field Coupeville related to the 36 new Growlers you want, what are your
2207
intentions for including in your EIS the electromagnetic warfare emitter activities at OLF?
Have you ever prepared a detailed environmental analysis of that emitter at OLF
Coupeville? If so, when was it prepared, and where is it? 6. Why are you not including the
proposed electromagnetic warfare range on the Olympic Peninsula Coast in this EIS,
since those activities are directly related to these new Growlers you are seeking to base
at NASWI? 7. At another public meeting, a Navy representative cited scheduling issues
as a reason for moving the entire electronic warfare training operations from Mountain
Home, Idaho and other areas to NASWI. The Olympic Training Range would be under
the sole control of the Navy rather than another branch of the Armed Services. Is this this
reason legally valid? It has not been cited in any documents. Why not? Electromagnetic
radiation: 1. Growler jets carry a variety of extremely powerful electronic weapons such
as lasers, high-powered microwave or EMP or anti-radiation energy in concentrated,
directed beams designed, according to a Navy source document to attack personnel,
facilities, or equipment with the intent of degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy
combat capability In addition, the Navys Environmental Assessment states that the
training in the Olympic MOA will provide full combat readiness in electronic attack. What
types of electronic attack will be practiced by these Growler jets, and what are the
potential impacts, intended or otherwise, on the local population and the environment? 2.
A supporting document referenced by the Navy, called Joint Publication 3-13.1 says,
Friendly Electronic Attack could potentially deny essential services to a local population
that, in turn, could result in loss of life and/or political ramifications. At every public
meeting the Navy has been asked by fire and emergency rescue personnel about
potential interference with or jamming of vital communications, but no adequate answers
have been given. It was also learned at the last public meeting that no Navy personnel
will be operating the mobile or fixed ground emitters, nor could the Navy explain how
these contractors would be trained. What guarantee can the Navy give that the public will
believe, that its operations will not interfere with communications signals in communities
near where it conducts its activities? Climate change issues: 1. According to a study by a
physicist from the University of California, Berkeley, a Growler jet that burns 1304 gallons
per hour produces 12.5 metric tons of CO2 per hour. This is 23% more than the annual
CO2 emissions of a Washington State citizen. In other words, you would need to drive a
car 29,500 miles to produce the amount of CO2 a Growler produces in one hour. There
will be 118 Growlers stationed at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, and the Navys
Environmental Assessment states that training will last 8 16 hours per day for 260 days
per year. Has the Navy done any analysis on the effects of climate change as a magnifier
to Northwest ecosystems, or any analyses on the Navys contribution to climate change?
2. The Navy lists these two reasons for why it wants to move the entire electronic warfare
training program to the Olympic Peninsula: savings on jet fuel from not having to fly the
extra 400 miles to Mountain Home, Idaho, and more time for Navy personnel to spend
with their families because of the 45-minute savings in flight-time. At 100 million barrels of
oil per year, the US military is the worlds largest user of fossil fuel. 70 percent of that use
is jet fuel. While everyone acknowledges saving fuel is a good goal, adding at least 36
jets that burn 1304 gallons per hour hardly qualifies as a fuel-saving event. Has the Navy
done a cost analysis on jet fuel savings from not flying an extra 400 miles, versus effects
on the environment? Have the Navy or the Department of Defense done any analyses of
the contribution of burning this much fossil fuel to climate change?
2207
(b)(6)
2208
Arlington, WA 98223
NASWI should be provided the best possible equipment & training i/o to aid the
war-effort+ nat.defense potential. We do not mind the jet noise of their training flights. We
are more bothered by the constant air-horns of the BNSF-RR every night! We are proud
of these pilots, support-men + their dedication to their job. Keep up the good work, and
God bless you all!!!!
(b)(6)
2209
Seattle, WA 98125
Please place me on your list for receiving Scoping, EA, DEIS, FEIS, & other documents
on all future projects in Western Washington. Please send the scoping documents for the
EA-18G Growler EIS. Code EV21/SS Thank you.
(b)(6)
2210
Poulsbo, WA 98370
The area that the Navy wants to utilize covers a vast area of natural beauty that is
becoming more scarce every year. Many people travel to these areas every year.If the
they want to do testing they can go to eastern Washington where there are fewer people
and less pristine forests. While I completely support the military in most ways this is
clearly a major mistake on their part. Sometimes quality of life for civilian should trump
military desires.
(b)(6)
2211
Anacortes, WA 98221
My wife and I have lived on the south end of Decatur Island since retiring in 2009 but
have maintained a residence there since the 1980's. During the past few years noise
resulting from Whidbey Naval Jet overflights has made normal life here increasingly
intolerable. It occurs during the day, it occurs at night. It wakes us up and makes normal
conversation difficult or even impossible. At its worst, we are unable to listen to music,
watch watch television or converse. We appreciate the importance of Navy Whidbey's
defense role but sincerely ask that you consider the lives of your neighbors and make
efforts to mitigate the noise exposure resulting from Growler overflights. Thank you,
(b)(6)
2212

I am writing in opposition to the continued Growler flights from Whidbey Naval Air Station.
The noise is incredibly loud and is disruptive to my family's homeschool activities. I thank
you for considering my opinion.
(b)(6)
2213

Thank you for accepting my comments on the proposed increase in Growler jet
operations at NAS Whidbey Islands Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. I am opposed to the
increase because the existing number of jets is already too loud for peace of mind -- and
I live 25 miles away (northwest on San Juan Island) where I can hear the noise and feel
the vibration from the jet operations. I cannot imagine how unbearable it must be for
humans beings to have to live in any closer proximity to this harmful noise pollution. In
my opinion, the jets are not the sound of freedom, but instead have come to symbolize
the taking of our free right to quiet enjoyment on our property. I am in support of the No
Action Alternative. Better yet, I support removing the Growler operations from Whidbey
Island all together and relocating the action elsewhere where it can do no more harm to
citizens.
(b)(6)
2214

Lopez Island is noted to be one of the most beautiful places in the US. Except it is not
usually noted how incredibly toxic it is here, in my home Island. The growlers are that
noxious, really insane and terrible aspect in the midst of this beauty. Last week my
friends and I held a vigil for our dear friend who had just died. It was so beautiful, filled
with quiet music and sacred readings. Constantly over and over again this deeply felt
occasion was intensely spoiled and shattered by the absolutely horrific abomination of
growler noise. Please take your insanity out of our lives. Thanks you for listening. I truly
hope you have some sensitivity to human beings and animals, though it truly seems
unlikely. Of course you are trying to help us, with your bombs and killing and inflicting
agony and hatred and war.
(b)(6)
2215

We have owned property on the north end of Lopez Island, near the ferry landing for 16
years and lived here full-time for 7. The jet noise from deep rumbles hours many
weekdays and several times/month flyovers - esp. when there is low cloud cover - has
increased many fold this past year. This has severely impacted our solitude and
enjoyment of the pristine environment we have chosen to call home. Analysis in the 2005
and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was inadequate to support the
findings. The Navy must enhance the analysis in order to support proposed actions in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS should study the following: A. Conduct
continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month
period. B. Include C-Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. C. The EIS
analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements including Sound
Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (Lmax) in addition to Ldn. Document the
projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5 dB increments
throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County. D. Sound measurement and
analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or the Navy should commit in the
mitigation section of the Record of Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training
flights.
(b)(6)
2216

We live on the north end of Lopez Island near the ferry landing. There is growler rumbling
most days that sets us on edge - and flyovers, esp. when there is low cloud cover that
instigate a fear response. Fear that we have no control over the noise that interferes with
our lives, fear that jets are flying too low overhead. The flyover noise comes suddenly
from "nowhere" and stops us in our tracks. Startled? More than that, there is NO place to
hide. Also, the reaction observed at the Lopez Preschool on a sunny afternoon, children
playing happily when a jet flew over - happy kids turned to screaming kids. What about
them? The EIS should address the health effects of Startle Reactions. Medical surveys
should be conducted on the impacted populations including San Juan County. Mitigation
should be put in place for all Growler activity.
(b)(6)
2217

We live on the north end of Lopez Island, near the ferry landing. Thank you for
considering the long term affects on our wellbeing as we feel our voice may be heard
through these scoping comments. Other than this venue, there is a sense that the Navy
really doesn't care... Perhaps a limited training schedule, or a new location away from a
sensitive population would be a solution... The EIS should address the issue of Loss of
Control. Mitigation should include notifying citizens in advance of all Growler training
operations at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and
(b)(6)
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely
(b)(6)
2218

I have lived on Lopez Island for many years. The jets from NASWI have not bothered me
much until this last year. Now I experience them all over the Island. If I want to walk on
our new National Monument lands at Iceberg Point they are the predominant sound - not
birds or waves or sea lions. If Im in the Village I experience them often with their
deafening vibrations. Even at our ferry landing at the north end their noise is not
uncommon. At night when the island used to be quiet the hours of blasting and roaring
can be heard until late at night. I do not understand why this EIS does not include an
Alternative that would base Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. .Section 1500.14 of
the Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires that Agencies shall (a)
Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives. The introduction
of the Growler is negatively impacting San Juan County and the whole region.
Alternatives should not be dismissed just because they are higher in cost or not as
efficient. Adding any Growlers to an already significantly affected area is unjustified. I
know that there are other possibilities where Growler training and basing can happen.
The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location
(b)(6)
other than NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely
(b)(6)
2219
Lopez island, WA 98261

I live on Mud Bay on Lopez. The jet noise, whether it is a rumble with vibration or coming
from a Growler flying low overhead and emitting horrific noise, distracts me from my
work. My stomach tightens as I am startled from my concentration and become
concerned that it will be yet another day of feeling like I live in a war zone. I was off island
for several days last week and found myself NOT WANTING to return home to face more
jet noise. That is sad. I want the EIS to include an examination of the comments made on
the San Juan Island Jet Noise reporting system. I want those comments analyzed as well
as taken into consideration. Lopez Island is a HIGH IMPACT area from NASWI Growler
noise.
(b)(6)
2220

(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Port Townsend, WA. 98368
(b)(6)
TO: EA-18G EIS Project Manager, Dec. 10, 2014 Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, Attn: Code EV21/SS, 6506 Hampton Blvd.,
Norfolk, VA 23508 REGARDING: Comments for Scoping the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for EA-18G Growler airfield operations at Naval Air Station (NAS)
Whidbey Island Thank for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIS for 36
additional EA-18G Growler jets to be based at the Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island. I
object to placement of 36 additional Growler jets to the Naval Air Station at Whidbey
Island. These 36 are in addition to 82 Growler jets already stationed at Whidbey. As I
understand it an EIS was never conducted for the 82 jets. I object to the additional 36
Growler jets for the following reasons: 1. The noise produced is well above tolerance
levels for humans and animals and is above that produced for existing Prowler aircraft.
Growlers can generate 150 decibels. The noise produced by one Growler, let alone the
projected teams of 3 Growlers, will be harmful to humans and wildlife. The effects of the
noise will include hearing loss, increased stress hormones, cardiovascular disease,
immune system compromise and psychosocial impacts. One of the airfields currently
used by Growlers, in Coupeville, borders an elementary school. The impact of the
Growlers next to the school is extremely harmful to the children. The scope of the EIS
must study the noise level made by Growlers at 6,000 feet down to 1000 feet. The study
must show actual noise made by Growlers, not extractions from studies made on other
aircraft in other locations. And, the study must evaluate the impact on humans,
particularly children, and animals of that amount of noise. Impact studies must include:
hearing loss, increased stress hormones, cardiovascular disease, immune system
compromise and psychosocial impacts. The research must include studies of children at
the school in Coupeville by the airport used by Growlers for training. 2. The cumulative
economic impact of flights by 82, plus 36, Growlers must be studied. Sales of housing on
Whidbey Island are already down and prices of houses that are selling are down. I am
sure that is true in Forks also. Families living in the Coupeville area must keep all
windows and doors closed when Growlers are using the airfield for practice. The impact
of Growler overflights on housing in Forks and on Whidbey Island must be evaluated
here and at the present time, not extracted from studies at other places at other times.
The economic impact of the overflight of Growers on the Peninsula will hurt the tourist
industry, particularly the Olympic National Park, Whidbey Island, and on west end
beaches, primarily those under the jurisdiction of Indian tribes. Tourism is a very large
part of our economy and provides many jobs. The economic impact must be studied in
the immediate area, not extracted from some other study, conducted at another time and
in a different locality. 3. A Growler jet produces a great deal of CO2 that is harmful to the
local area and promotes climate change. A Growler burns 1304 gallons per hour
producing 12.5 metric tons of CO2 per hour. I would have to drive a car 29,500 miles to
produce the amount a Growler produces in one hour. There will be 118 Growlers
stationed at Whidbey; training will last 6-16 hours per day for 260 days per year. What is
the impact on climate change from this enormous use of fuel?? 4. What alternatives are
available in less populated areas for training Navy pilots? And, is it necessary that the US
(b)(6)
train more Navy flyers?? Sincerely
(b)(6)
2221
Bellevue, WA 98008
I would like a copy of the draft EIS when it becomes available. An electronic copy would
be fine.
(b)(6)
2222
(b)(6)
Hi, my name is
and I am the marketing manager at StarSEO Marketing. I was just
looking at your website and see that your site has the potential to become very popular. I
just want to tell you, In case you don't already know... There is a website service which
already has more than 16 million users, and most of the users are looking for topics like
yours. By getting your site on this service you have a chance to get your site more
visitors than you can imagine. It is free to sign up and you can read more about it here:
http://tlink.pl/6f00 - Now, let me ask you... Do you need your website to be successful to
maintain your way of life? Do you need targeted traffic who are interested in the services
and products you offer? Are looking for exposure, to increase sales, and to quickly
develop awareness for your site? If your answer is YES, you can achieve these things
only if you get your site on the network I am describing. This traffic service advertises you
to thousands, while also giving you a chance to test the service before paying anything.
All the popular sites are using this network to boost their traffic and ad revenue! Why
arent you? And what is better than traffic? Its recurring traffic! That's how running a
successful site works... Here's to your success! Read more here: http://tlink.pl/6f00
(b)(6)
2223
We have had property on Whidbey island since 1950 and the Growlers are the worst.
Horrible noise, screaching for hours. Don't tell us we knew of the noise - we have lived
with it for 40+ years and it's now reached the most horrendous levels ever. 2 hours of
training at the OLF once a week is fine but 6-8 hours several days a week is killing us
and adversely effecting our lives. I have to move my 90 year old mother to another part of
the island every time the Growlers fly the OLF - sometimes up to 4 times a week. I can't
hear her calling me even in the same room. The Navy used to be respected and is now
hated, mostly because of their lack of understanding that this island houses our children,
our parents and our lives. Please close the OLF, go to Nevada or at the very least, cut
the hours drastically during the day and night at the OLF in Coupeville. I know lots of
Navy folks and I respect them all individually and I respect the Navy. Please be a better
neighbor and resident of the island and keep the operations in Oak Harbor and close the
OLF.
(b)(6)
2224

I have no objection to your proposed expansion of the Growler jet operations on Whidbey
Island.
(b)(6)
2225

An increase in warfare training operations on the North Olympic Peninsula would be
detrimental to our quality of life and the lives of all living organisms in this World
Biosphere designated area. I spend time in the forests here for peace and quiet. I float
the rivers and hike the mountains only to be buzzed by the constant roaring of jets. My
family has enjoyed this area of the US for over 6 generations, this is our home, not a
playground for the preparation of a future war. Can this training be conducted in the
desert where there is little chance of harming life? I would personally like to know what
effects this electromagnetic warfare / radiation emmitting would have on a living
organism. Have there been studies? Will the public be informed? I'd like to add that I am
disgusted with the underwater sonic testing that is harming sea life. If the animals could
vote, I believe things would be a bit different. In all my main question is, why the
increase? Out of respect for my fellow citizens of the North Olympic Peninsula, the land
and all inclusive animals, I would like to see this endeavor terminated. Thank you for the
opportunity to shed my opinion. I respect our country's effort to protect our nations
assets, as my family has fought in wars for many generations to help accomplish this
freedom we truly enjoy, but there must be less intrusive ways. A balance must be
reached.
(b)(6)
2226
Temecula, CA 92590
(b)(6)
My family built and has owned our home located at

Langley, WA,
since 1969. We strongly oppose any increase in navy jet flight operations based out of
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. We would really like to see jet plane operations
reduced from current levels and think it is totally insensitive amounting to bullying your
neighbors and taxpayers to propose increasing operations. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment.
(b)(6)
2227

My comment is in regards to the health effects related to Startle Reaction from Growler
training San Juan County has a low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside). County
residents are routinely exposed 90 114 dBA (outside) blasts of noise from Growler over
flights and operations at Ault Field resulting in startle reactions. This noise is perceived
subconsciously by the human body as a danger signal. The body reacts with fight or flight
response with resultant nervous, hormonal and vascular changes. The jet noise
experienced is not unlike the noise of an earthquake, a strong wind or a chimney fire.
Research shows that humans do not become accustomed to repeated noise at this level.
This is also true and correct in regards to animals whether they be animals in the wild or
animals kept as pets. Even worse yet, animals that bring income to the farmers who see
a loss in production (i.e. milk cows, etc.) who are repeatedly startled by the aircraft noise.
I live in a wooded area of the Olympic Peninsula and work from home. We experience
Growler noise usually 5 days a week often starting at 8am and continuing until 9 -10 pm
in the winter and 12 pm 1 am in the summer. One of the most difficult aspects for me is
the Startle effect. We get sporadic blasts of noise throughout the day ranging from 75
113 decibels. I can feel my adrenalin kick in and my blood pressure rises. This constant
noise is definitely affecting my health. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological,
and Social Effects of Noise (pub 1115), National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, pp. 535- 545, 1984. Hall, FL., Birnie, SE, Taylor, SM, Palmer, JE: Direct
Comparison of Community Response to Road Traffic Noise and To Aircraft Noise, J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 70:1690-1698, 1981. The EIS should address the health effects of
Startle Reactions. Medical surveys should be conducted on the impacted populations
including San Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity.
Sincerely Phyllis Rollston References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and Social
Effects of Noise (pub 1115), National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Startle Reactions. Conduct medical surveys on the impacted populations including San
Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity.
(b)(6)
2228

Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was
inadequate to support the findings. The Navy must enhance the analysis in order to
support proposed actions in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A. In the 2012
EA, Figure 3-4, Projected 2013 DNL Noise Contours for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville
indicates that San Juan County (SJC) is outside the affected area. This does not reflect
citizen experience. We experience Growler activity that is loud and disruptive. Possible
factors may include flights at lower elevation than assumed and ducting of jet noise
between water and clouds. It is good engineering practice to verify computer simulations
with actual measurements. Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern
portion of SJC over a one-month period. B. Sound measurements and analysis in the
EAs used the A Weighting. This approximates the response of the human ear and
according to the cited studies in the EAs is linked to hearing loss and annoyance.
Growler engine noise has a signature low frequency component that is ignored by A
Weighting. There is substantial evidence that low frequency sounds have deleterious
health impacts beyond annoyance as addressed in other comments. Growler sound
measurement with C Weighting, which includes most of the low frequency spectrum, is
expected to be 10 to 20 dB higher than A Weighting. We believe that C Weighting would
also indicate that the Growler events are louder than the Prowler. A fundamental
assumption in the EAs, that the Growler is quieter, is incorrect. Include C Weighted
sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. Reference: Low Frequency Noise Study;
Hodgdon, Atchley, Bernhard; April 2007
http://web.mit.edu//p/reports/proj1/lfnreport-2007-001.pdf C. For decades studies of
airport noise have used the Day-Night Average (Ldn) metric for assessing impacts. This
may be appropriate for airports with typical operations 16 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The noise experienced during Growler training flights is intermittent. We have days
without activity. It occurs in a region with very low background noise of 35 45 dBA
(outside measurement). This is lower than the quiet suburban neighborhood
background noise level cited in the Wyle report for the 2012 EA. The startle factor is a
component of the adverse health impacts that would be better represented by a short
duration noise measurement. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise
measurements including Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (Lmax) in
addition to Ldn. Document the projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL
and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County.
Reference: Mestre, V., et. al,: Technical Support For Day/Night Average Sound Level
(Dnl) Replacement Metric Research, Final Report, 14 June 2011, Section 6.1, last
paragraph. D. We understand that noise measurements and projections in the EAs
assume that afterburners are not in use. We understand that afterburners are used at
times including takeoffs and FCLPs. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should
include afterburners or the Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the Record of
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. I have lived on the North
Olympic Peninsula since 1979. In the last year noise and over-flights from the Growlers
at Ault field has exceeded anything we have experienced in the last 35 years. All the
reasons we have chosen to live here are being degraded by the constant noise, vibration
and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no
significant impact area. This is clearly false. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler
Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS should study the following: A. Conduct continuous
sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period. B. Include
C-Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. C. The EIS analysis should
incorporate supplemental noise measurements including Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
and Peak Sound Level (Lmax) in addition to Ldn. Document the projected annual number
of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5 dB increments throughout the impacted
areas including San Juan County. D. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. Sincerely, (b)(6)
2228
(b)(6)
2229

My comment is about the health effects related to Loss of Control Residents of San Juan
from 65 110 dBA and 75 124 dBC (inside) and is the result of over flights, engine
testing and training operations. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a
schedule of training operations for Ault Field. As a consequence, residents never know if
a blast of noise is going to be a single 30 second event or the beginning of 3 hours of
noise from training. This severely impacts quality of life, use of property and has health
consequences. Surveys show that loss of control over ones life is one of the most
disturbing effects of low level military over flights and/or sonic booms on rural Americans.
Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M: Psychophysiological Reaction to Noise as
Modified by Personal Control over Noise Intensity. Biol Psychol, 6:51-59, 1978. Singer
JE, Acri JB, Schaeffer MH: Cognitive Changes from Noise Exposure. In Bergland B,
Lindvall T (eds): Noise as a Public Health Problem. New Advances in Noise Research
(volume I of proceedings of the 5th international congress on noise as a public health
problem, held in Stockholm, Aug. 21-25, 1988), Swedish Council for Building Research,
Stockholm, pp 401-410, 1990. Bargen R: Airspace Blues, Airspace, Gabbs, Nev, p 424,
1989. The EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include
notifying citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield including
Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
Over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations from Growlers and operation at Ault Field
are degrading many of the reasons people choose to live on the island. When the jets are
flying the noise is often so intense that conversation stops. Naval Air Station Whidbey
Island does not publish a schedule of training operations for Ault Field. As a
consequence, residents never know if a blast of noise is going to be a single 30 second
event or the beginning of 3 hours of noise from training. This severely impacts quality of
life, use of property and has health consequences. Surveys show that loss of control over
ones life is one of the most disturbing effects of low level military over flights and/or sonic
booms on rural Americans. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M:
Bargen R: Airspace Blues, Airspace, Gabbs, Nev, p 424, 1989. The EIS should address
the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include notifying citizens in advance of all
Growler training operations at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice
(FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2230

I would like to comment on the health effects due to Sleep Disturbance San Juan County
residents regularly experience Growler jet noise between the hours of 8 pm and 12
midnight. During the summer the noise often continues to 1 am. The indoor threshold for
falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. San Juan County residents noise journals show that indoor
sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field range from 57 80 dBA. If the low frequency noise
is measured the sound levels range from 77 100 dBC. Windows rattle, bodies vibrate
and ear protection does not help. Using the Day-Night Average (Ldn) noise measure
does not take into account that our bodies do not average sleep loss. Noise annoyance
during the night increases noise annoyance for the following 24 hours. Noise disruptions
and sleep disturbance can lead to health disorders and interfere with convalescence from
Germany and Centre dEtudes Bioclimatiques due CNRS, France. The EIS should
address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the study area including San
Juan County should document the extent of this problem. An Alternative that removes
FCLP and CCA practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be
developed and studied. Research shows that the indoor threshold for falling asleep is
35-40 dBA. Our noise journals show that indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field
range from 57 80 dBA. If the low frequency noise is measured the sound levels range
from 77 100 dBC. Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Its
unthinkable that the Navy considers San Juan County and Lopez Island a no significant
impact noise area! Averaging noise over a year is useless when youre trying to sleep.
Our bodies do not average sound. I feel that living with the sleep disruptions from the
Growlers is affecting my health. References: LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking
developed and studied. Sincerely (b)(6)
2230
(b)(6)
2231
Lopez, WA 98261
I have lived on the north end of Lopez Island for 15 years. I own and operate a U-pick
berry farm where visitors and local residents come with their families to enjoy a day of
picking berries. I'm very concerned about the impact of the noise, vibration and fly-overs
from the Naval Air Station on Whidbey Island, which have recently increased dramatically
. A Whidbey Island farmer has already lost customers due to jet noise. The EIS should
address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island
Counties.
(b)(6)
2232
Lopez, WA 98261
. The EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off
of, the analysis and Records Of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments.
(b)(6)
2233
Lopez, WA 98261
and has negatively impacted our quality of life. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more
alternatives that base Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2234

To: EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager December 13, 2014 I have lived in Port
Townsend since 1985. In the last year noise and over-flights from the Growlers from and
to Ault field has exceeded anything we have experienced in the last 29 years. All the
and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers Jefferson County (JC) a no
significant impact area. This is clearly false. One of the wonders of living here has been
the quiet nights and being able to hear the waves, the sea lions, the wind and all the night
sounds. The Growlers have destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise between
8pm and 12 midnight. In the summer the noise can continue until 1am. Averaging noise
over a year is useless when youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not average sound. I
feel that living with the sleep disruptions from the Growlers is affecting my health.
References: LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking Performance Decrements Following
Minimal Sleep Description: The Effects of Habituation during Sleep, Physiological
Psychology, 3:147-174, 1975. Kryter, Ran D., Analysis of Laboratory and Field Data on
Awakening from Noise, 1988. Lukas, J., Measures of Noise Level: Their Relative
Accuracy In Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise During Sleep.
EPA-600/1-77-0 10, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Feb. 1977. Griefahn, Barbara. Research
on Nose-Disturbed Sleep since 1973. In Proceedings of the Third International Congress
on Noise as a Public Health Problem. ASHA Report No. 10, April 1980. Gniefahn, B
Muzet, A: Noise Induced Sleep Disturbances and Their Effects on Health. Institut Feur
Arbeits und Sozialmedizin, Universitaet Mainz, West Germany and Centre dEtudes
Bioclimatiques due CNRS, France. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A
survey of the residents in the study area including Jefferson County should document the
extent of this problem. An Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault
field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. The Growlers are
changing the quality of life in Jefferson, Mason and Clallam County. The quiet and
pristine nature of this region with its easy access to the beauty of the Olympic National
Park attracts organic agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists, hikers, kayakers, sailors,
tourists, summer residents and retirees. I have talked to visitors who have experienced
the jet noise and have stated that they will never return. Continuation of the current level
of jet noise, let alone increasing the number of jets, will discourage visitors and reduce
property values. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan,
Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson, Mason, Clallam and Island Counties. I have been following
the EIS process for the past year. It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012
Environmental Assessments were deficient and incomplete. The Growlers were moved to
NASWI without a full EIS and without sufficient study of noise impacts, health
consequences, plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and economic impacts to
the region. The low frequency noise which is the signature noise of the Growler was not
even considered. Jefferson County was considered a no significant impact area. Clearly
this is not the case. This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should
not rely on, or tier off of, the Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
(b)(6)
Assessments. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
2235

My wife and I have lived on the North end of Lopez Island for some 4 years. When we
arrived here the environment was mostly serene punctuated by brief periods of apparent
aerial warfare. While this was a minor nuisance at first it has become a major intrusion.
What is particularly galling is the threat of further, heightened noise and air pollution by
our own military. I am a disabled, Vietnam era veteran. While in the military we were
always told that civilians outrank the military. Yet the truth seems that civilians are looked
down by the military and are often considered a nuisance at best. It seems we are having
to choose: protection from the real and present threats from our own military or the
perceived ones from some nebulous other nation. The EIS needs to include pollutions
caused by the practices of the jets especially the Growlers. The pollutions should include
noise and air both of which seriously affect the quality of life for all sentient life forms. A
recent report
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2025149841_meltingglaciersxml.html showed
the Glaciers in the Amundsen Sea are losing the ice equivalent of Mt. Everest every two
years. This area has the potential to raise worldwide sea levels some 4 feet. The melting
is the direct result of carbon dioxide pollution. The emissions of Navy jets especially the
growlers need to be not only studied but also taken into consideration. The fact that these
jets expend a huge amount of pollution while standing still further adds to the
predicament. The EIS should address the social and natural environmental impacts
throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit Jefferson and Island Counties. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2236

Noise My wife and I have lived on the North end of Lopez Island for some 4 years. When
we arrived here the environment was mostly serene punctuated by brief periods of
apparent aerial warfare. While this was a minor nuisance at first it has become a major
intrusion. What is particularly galling is the threat of further, heightened noise and air
pollution by our own military. I am a disabled, Vietnam era veteran so I have some idea of
the workings of the military mind. Somehow, in this instance, I feel I am the enemy and
one in which the military has to deal with. The EIS will not show there is no impact from
the presence of the military! The impact will, of course, increase with the addition of more
military hardware and personnel. It is up to the Navy to minimize the harm caused by
their presence but the normal tendency is to heighten the need and downplay the impact.
Without someone looking over the militarys shoulder they can understate the impact.
The presence of a conflict of interest is glaring. The need for a third, unaffected or
impacted party is paramount to the honesty of the EIS. What impact will the civilian
scoping letters have on the approval of the Navys request? How much will the natural
and social environments be taken into consideration? Does the military really care about
its effect on the social/natural environment and what is it willing to do to ameliorate its
impact? Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was
support proposed actions in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The current EIS
should study the following: Conduct continuous sound measurements (on the ground
not computer modeling) in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period Include
C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. The EIS analysis should
incorporate supplemental noise measurements including Sound Exposure Level (LCE)
and Peak Sound Level (LCPeak) in addition to Ldn. Sound measurement and analysis in
the EIS should include afterburners or the Navy should commit in the mitigation section of
the Record of Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights over North Puget
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Sound.
(b)(6)
2237

our own military. I am a disabled, Vietnam era veteran so I have some idea of the
workings of the military mind. Somehow, in this instance, I feel I am the enemy and one
in which the military has to remove. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M:
Growler training operations at Ault Field including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP),
(b)(6)
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs), takeoffs and engine run-up.
(b)(6)
Lopez Island WA 98261
(b)(6)
2238
I'm an RN who has been caring for a disabled individual living approximately 1/2 mile
from the Ault Field runway. Fighter jets take off and land all day long. When they're
preparing to take off, my patient's house shakes. You can't have a conversation inside
the house while these planes take off. It's literally deafening. And it goes on all day long,
every day. It's unconscionable that the Navy is planning bring this insult to the Olympic
National Forest and wilderness areas of the western Olympic Peninsula. Your whitewash
of the electromagnetic radiation is repulsive. There's nothing to whitewash about the
literally deafening noise you plan on forcing on even more of us. Shame on you.
(b)(6)
2239
Deer Harbor, WA 98243

Quiet rural communities all over the Puget Sound area are being advesely affected by the
Growler training activity. Our communities are economically dependent on
tourism--people come to hike, bike, kayak,a nd just be in a peaceful atmosphere; an
atmosphere that doesn'r exist when Growlers take to the air. Here on Orcas, the deep
roar of the Growlers rattle windows, and reverberate through buildings. If it happened
only a few times a day, it would be tolerable, but it goes on for hours. I wonder if there isn
't a more remote place--like out in the desert--where these test ans exercises could be
performed? The current level of training is unbearable. I can't imagine expanding the
program to include additional planes.
(b)(6)
2240

Alternatives My wife and I have lived on the North end of Lopez Island for some 4 years.
When we arrived here the environment was mostly serene punctuated by brief periods of
apparent aerial warfare. While this was a minor nuisance at first it has become a major
intrusion. What is particularly galling is the threat of further, heightened noise and air
pollution by our own military. I am a disabled, Vietnam era veteran so I have some idea of
the workings of the military mind. Somehow, in this instance, I feel I am the enemy and
one in which the military has to remove. If I/we want to walk on our new National
Monument lands at Iceberg Point they are the predominant sound - not birds or waves or
sea lions. If Im in the Village I experience them often with their deafening vibrations.
Even at our ferry landing at the north end their noise is not uncommon. At night when the
island used to be quiet the hours of blasting and roaring can be heard until late at night.
The constant rumbling is getting tiresome. Too many are too concerned with their mission
at the cost of a loss of quality of life; a quality of life that includes others! This
short-sightedness is wrong and that thought of its possible increase does not lend itself
to support of the military. I do not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative
that would base Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. .Section 1500.14 of the Council
on Environmental Quality regulations requires that Agencies shall (a) Rigorously explore
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives. The introduction of the Growler is
negatively impacting San Juan County and the whole region. Alternatives should not be
dismissed just because they are higher in cost or not as efficient. Adding any Growlers to
an already significantly affected area is unjustified. I know that there are other
possibilities where Growler training and basing can happen. The EIS should fully
evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS
(b)(6)
Whidbey Island. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island, WA
98261
(b)(6)
2241
Nevada City, CA 95959

I have personally experience Electromagnetic radiation. It is very determental to all life
and it is not okay for you to do it there or anywhere for that matter.
(b)(6)
2242
Anybody beside me think having ALL of our electronic warfare aircraft in ONE spot,like
Battleship Row at Pearl Harbor, is a good idea??
(b)(6)
2243

Perceived noise from EA-18G operations is noticeably louder than previous EA-6B or A-6
flight operations at my residence in Port Townsend. This has resulted in difficulty sleeping
at night, particularly in the summer when it is necessary to have the windows open. Most
homes in this area do not use air conditioners and rely on natural cooling from the cold
surrounding water. Additional flight operations will exacerbate this problem. There are
several State parks in the area with overnight accommodations, which include tent
camping, and additional noise is likely to disturb those visitors, possibly leading to
decreased park attendance and subsequent reduction in revenue from park visitors.
NOISEMAP modeling of the airfield noise generation does not seem to have captured the
true impact of the noise produced by EA-18G flight operations. It should be required to
have actual noise monitoring of EA-18G operations from areas where noise complaints
have been registered to correct any modeling errors. Each EIS which has increased the
number of EA-18G planes operating claimed that the alternatives would decrease the
noise environment compared to baseline conditions and that the additional noise from
P-8 would not contribute significantly to the overall aircraft noise environment as the P-8
is 20 dB less than the SELs for the EA-6B and EA- 18G. However each additional flight
or increase in noise from each flight raises the day-night average sound level, which in
effect forces us to live with a higher overall background noise level.
(b)(6)
2244

The Pacific Northwest is a prime environment to provide significant, realistic and vital
training for our nations aviators. Naval Air Station Whidbey and the Outlying Field
Coupeville have been for decades and are presently part of this training equation. I
purchased my home knowing that I lived near NAS, occasionally the aircraft do fly over
my home. I do not understand how ANYONE purchasing or renting property anywhere on
Whidbey, or the general Puget Sound area could not be aware of this! Serious
consideration needs to be given to the continued basing at Whidbey. Combat readiness
training is proven by the variety of training missions flown here. To try and get this
training elsewhere by moving the Growlers would be both geographically and fiscally a
drain and burden to taxpayers in this already tough economy. Keep the Growlers at
NASWI and keep OLF open!!!!
(b)(6)
2245
Tonasket, WA 98855
This has GOT TO STOP!!! What you are doing is turning our parks and forest into a wast
land noise! Your jets are So loud that we can not even talk inside of our home. How are
you going to stop that from affecting the value of our homes? How can you think that this
will not affect the animals that live around here. We don't want you and don't need you!
(b)(6)
2248

I object to the increase in flights over Jefferson County. I object to the noise and believe
the added noise will diminish both quality of life and property values in Jefferson County.
(b)(6)
2249
Anacortes, WA 98221
It is appreciated that the growlers do not fly over Anacortes late at night or early morning.
It is impossible to sleep during flyovers. Hearing protection is necessary inside during the
worst and frequent flyovers. There are legal limits on cars, trucks and trains, not to
mention fireworks. Why are military aircraft exempt? The noise levels on the ground are
far above the level that causes damage. Hearing is affected. Emotions are affected.
Conversation stops. Wildlife is affected. It is difficult to hear even an emergency vehicle
during such outrageous powerful noise. Can we be called civilized when we are
subjected to such unnecessary abuse by our own military-the people who are supposed
to protect us?
(b)(6)
2250
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155

I am opposed to the growler jet expansion of flights over the Olympic Penninsula and the
proposed electromagnetic warfare games. This is proposed over protected National Park
Land and directly affects the Native American population. Can these exercises be done
via computer simulation? Or, is there an uninhabited Island off the coast that could be
used for this? Or could it be done over the ocean with the electromagnetic transmitters on
Navy ships or manufactured platforms? This would allow for even more mobility of the
electromagnetic trucks and more flexibility in your exercises. Thank you for your
consideration.
(b)(6)
2251
coupeville, WA 98239
I have been living in an area affected by OLF practice sessions for over 16 years and
have been able to adjust to the noise levels up until this last year when the new Growler
sessions cause actual physical pain to my hearing mechanisms.I am also concerned
about endangered marine wildlife in this area of tremendous natural beauty..
(b)(6)
2252

workings of the military mind. Somehow, in this instance, we feel we are the enemy and
one in which the military has to aggressively deal with. The San Juan County
Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of peace.... We support a pattern
of economic growth which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine
and isolated nature of the islands." The quiet and pristine nature of the islands with its
marine protected areas, National Monuments and National Historical Parks attracts
organic agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists, hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer residents
and retirees. We have talked to visitors who have experienced the jet noise and have
stated that they will never return. Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone
increasing the number of jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property values. The
EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson
and Island Counties. The impacts should include direct gains brought on by the military
and losses caused by the heavy handed presence of the military. Externalities should be
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
included in any economic impact statement.
(b)(6)
2253
Given that we who have lived in relatively close proximity to the Coupeville OLF for
multiple decades perceive a significant increase in noise with EA-18G training, I want the
scope of the study to include decibel measurements at actual residences (you'll be able
to get permission). Though you plan to measure a wide range of potential environmental
impacts, noise is the primary objection of those of us who live nearby. I believe testing
should simultaneously measure cortisol levels (or some other endocrinological
measurement of stress) on persons residing near the flight path.
(b)(6)
2254

The greatest affect of having the "Growler's" presence and training located at NAS
Whidbey Island is the noise and vibration it causes throughout the San Juan Islands,
especially on Lopez Island. Lopez has historically remained a tranquil, pastoral island
with a current economic base of tourism and farming. The draw for tourists is specifically
reflected in the islands feeling of serenity. This is a comment that is heard over and over
from visitors and island residents alike. This traditional feeling of peacefulness has been
shattered by the daily roar and vibrational rumblings caused by the "Growlers". I live
close to Lopez Village and have a business in the Village where the noise and vibration
should, according to NAS Whidbey, be minimal. This is NOT the case. There are flyovers
that result in completely stopping meetings and business transactions for minutes at a
time. The disturbance is present and noticeable rather inside or outside, at times, to point
of complete personal distress. The affect of this jarring noise/rumble on the economy and
the personal mental health of our islands, if this continues and increases, will be
devastating. The evaluation of the affects of the noise and vibration has been sorely
lacking. I believe that there is the technology available to reduce the noise and vibration
of this aircraft and until this is accomplished, no additional planes should be added to this
program. A reduction is actually needed. It also seems a poor choice to have only one
location to house and train this particular VAQ program. I understand the importance of
this program to our national security and just as with our electrical, communications and
water programs/systems, there is a network of locations to make the whole system more
secure. Due to the disruptive nature of the training programs to our community, I also feel
any additional training for other countries should occur in those countries. This would give
the citizens of those countries the benefit of the knowledge of the consequences of this
technology through first hand experience.
(b)(6)
2255

workings of the military mind. Somehow, in this instance, I feel I am the enemy which my
countrys military has to remove. I have been following the EIS process for the past year.
It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were deficient
and incomplete. The Growlers were moved to NASWI without a full EIS and without
sufficient study of noise impacts, health consequences, plans for mitigation of noise from
the Growlers, and economic impacts to the region. The low frequency noise which is the
signature noise of the Growler was not even considered. San Juan County was
considered a no significant impact area. Clearly this is not the case. I see the military as
not being about diplomacy. It is about personnel and hardware that needs to be used to
be justifiable. Therefore there is a tendency to inflate their importance and deflate the
obstacles. Numerous lost wars have highlighted this. Why do we have to continually
struggle with methods that have proven to be ineffective? Has nothing changed over the
millennia? Why cant we and particularly the military be more proactive? Destruction is
destruction, whether it be ourselves or an adversary. Both sides eventually lose and, in
this case, we are presently the losers. This EIS should conduct all analysis from the
beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the Records of Decision for the 2005 and
2012 Environmental Assessments. The EIS should include accountability of the Navy to
address their impact on the community as an integral part of their mission rather than a
nuisance to be dealt with. The EIS should address methods of diplomacy as an offset to
military force and threats. The diplomacy should be directed toward potential adversaries
(b)(6)
as well as the citizens of the militarys country. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2256

workings of the military mind. Somehow, in this instance, I feel I am the enemy and one
in which my countrys military has to remove. Often, the loud rumbling continues late into
the night. In the summer we sometimes have to close the bedroom windows because of
the noise. The heat and stuffiness makes it difficult to sleep. Its unthinkable that the Navy
considers San Juan County and Lopez Island a no significant impact noise area!
Averaging noise over a year is useless when youre trying to sleep. Averaging noise is a
tactic that lessens the real impact on those of us that have to live with it. This tactic
benefits the Navy at our expense. References: LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking
Juan County should document the extent of this problem. An action alternative that
removes FCLP and Approach practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours
should be developed and studied. The EIS should look at using a more realistic noise
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
measurement and abandon the averaging system.
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2257

We completely support the Navy training on Whidbey. Noise is just one of the items that
gives us freedom. We need a strong defense to keep our country safe and free and a
trained military is necessary to do that. Than k you Navy!
2258
,
Hush House- I was stationed at NAS Alameda When A new 15 million dollar Hush hush
house was built. The base closed and it was hardly used. Many of its components might
be used to offset the costs at NAS Whidbey. Number two. Unneeded noise at NAS
Whidbey.. I was stationed at Nas Imperial Beech and at North Island in San Diego CA.
Sound abatement was big there. At NAS Whidbey little attention is payed to this issue.
when the aircraft(jammers) return to the base they ,generally, fly down Dugualla Bay
where they throttle-up in order to make a victory run over the field and snap into a hard
turn over the numbers. this looks great but it subjects the people, who live along both
sides of this very narrow bay,to unnecessary abuse. A controlled decent into the landing
pattern would really be appreciated
(b)(6)
2259
why not transfer the flights to the the port angeles spit landing field. it simulates more the
real conditions and the flights are over water and not land like in coupeville, and as well
the approach can be over water and not residential areas as well. I believe there is also a
landing field in forks that is less populated. travel time to either location is minimal.
(b)(6)
2260

The flight noise while mildly annoying at times is a blessing . Ir means young women and
men will be able to defend this country when needed and when called upon. As a long
time resident and business owner I fully support the mission of the US Navy And am
grateful for their presence in our community. The gains in employees, shoppers,
volunteers and great neighbors. I know of no children who are tested by the schools
whose hearing has been impacted by this activity despite detractors erroneous
statements. Opponents have been publicly shown to deliberately make inaccurate and
misleading statements about being notified of the noise zone when they bought their
property. Please ignore their loud but small in number voices.
(b)(6)
2261
Marysville, WA 98271
Having spent 22+ years in Naval Aviation, and 22+ years working for Boeing. I don't feel
that these people have complaint, better that this is the Navy than a foreign government. I
have worked on some really loud aircraft, including the B-1B. This is the sound of
American Freedom. Also these people who buy houses near a airfield have no right to
complain.
(b)(6)
2262
Anacortes, 98221
I, like the majority of homeowners that reside near or under the flight pattern, have NO
objections to the jet noise. It s a small price to pay to have this country prepare our pilots.
The way to have freedom is to prepare for war, preparation is everything. Common sense
dictates "don't buy or build a house near an airport (small or large) if jet noise bothers
you". My family supports the base and the jet noise that is made. When I look up and the
jets are in the air, I smile.
(b)(6)
2263
Eastsound, WA 98245
The Navy is conducting noise measurements on Whidbey Island as part of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. Jet noise affecting residents on the San
Juan Islands is not being measured in the newly expanded EIS. I will work with the Navy
to see if it is possible to conduct sound measurements in the islands to be considered in
the EIS. The previous is a quote from Rep. Larsen. I would like to insist that you monitor
sound in the San Juans from the Growler jets, especially at the southern end of Lopez
and San Juan Islands.
(b)(6)
2264

I have no problem with the aircraft that fly over my home. I am pleased that we have the
Navy flying for our country and keeping us FREE. Am interested in what decisions are
being made.
(b)(6)
2265
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Hi, my name is
and I am
I was just
looking at your website and see that your site has the potential to become very popular. I
just want to tell you, In case you don't already know... There is a website service which
already has more than 16 million users, and the majority of the users are looking for
niches like yours. By getting your website on this network you have a chance to get your
site more visitors than you can imagine. It is free to sign up and you can find out more
about it here: http://claimyourexcellence.info/1gl - Now, let me ask you... Do you need
your site to be successful to maintain your way of life? Do you need targeted visitors who
are interested in the services and products you offer? Are looking for exposure, to
increase sales, and to quickly develop awareness for your website? If your answer is
YES, you can achieve these things only if you get your site on the service I am talking
about. This traffic network advertises you to thousands, while also giving you a chance to
test the service before paying anything at all. All the popular blogs are using this service
to boost their readership and ad revenue! Why arent you? And what is better than traffic?
Its recurring traffic! That's how running a successful site works... Here's to your success!
Read more here: http://2u4.us/1qky
(b)(6)
2266
MARYSVILLE, WA 98270
(b)(6)
I received
email concerning the jet noise at Whidbey. I just wanted to let
you know that I love those navy jets and wouldn't change a thing!! I have been around
airplanes all my life and really like those Naval aviators. You guys are the best and when
the Growlers fly over my house, I am the first to run outside and have a smile on my face
seeing them fly. Keep up the great work. I only wish they had those great airshows at
Whidbey (like in the past). That jet noise makes me proud to be American.
(b)(6)
2267

workings of the military mind. This issue has proven to myself and many in the
community the true lack of commitment by the Navy to the community within which it
operates. When there is a disagreement one side tries intimidation to get its point across.
It takes over a whole area, calls in the local police and sends its most intimidating
representatives. Those, more astute members of the community recognize these tactics
and ask ourselves, why hasnt the military seen how self-defeating they really are? Have
they not learned the lessons of previous encounters? Do they really think their
intimidation's lessen animosity? Unfortunately, it does just the opposite. This method of
communication actually erects a wall between the military and the community within
which it operates. It undermines the very idea of trust that should exist between the
community and the military. The EIS needs to address the way the military operates
within the local communities which are affected by its operations. It is NOT just about the
economics but must include the quality of life issues of all those that reside within the
field of operations. The EIS must include how the military communicates its needs and
operations to(b)(6)
the community and find ways of mutual respect and honesty on all sides.
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2268
The Navy has been helpful in stopping night flying after 10pm. That has been a very
positive step on their part.
(b)(6)
2269

I have been a fulltime resident of Lopez Island for seven years and a visitor for almost 20.
Over the 20 yr period, and especially in recent years, I have been struck by the increase
in noise from Growler overflights. I live on the north end of Lopez, where I understand
flights are not supposed to occur. And they dont, except during overcast conditions,
suggesting that flight path determinations are a matter of convenience, not agreement. I
feel very sympathetic towards the people on the southern part of Lopez who put up with
this disturbance on a regular basis. In fact, when we were looking for a house, we
avoided the south end because of the jet noise. Now we cant get away from it. Clearly
our home purchase decision is not unique, with consequences for the economy of these
islands and surrounding communities. Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let
alone increasing the number of jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property values.
Not including Alternatives that base additional jets at other locations due to higher costs
to the Navy does not consider the broader economic consequences for the region. The
and Island Counties. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2270

I have been a fulltime resident of Lopez Island for seven years and a visitor for almost 20.
Before retiring, I was an ecology professor, with a focus on marine conservation. I have
read and written about the impacts of anthropogenic sound on marine animals. In a word,
sound originating from above the water disrupts behavior and can cause damage to
auditory structures. I have not been made aware that portions of the Draft EIS will look
into how proposed increases in overflights may affect marine animals, including depth of
penetration and attenuation of sound as a function of decibel level and height above the
water, and possible negative impacts on marine life, not only our iconic orcas. The EIS
should include analysis of these issues.
(b)(6)
2271

Phone Also in Bellingham 360 527-2184 Lopes home faces ssw on Aleck Bay. Also own
inland property a 207 Frances Lane which I hope to sell one day. I certainly support the
Upgrade of the EW aircraft to the F-18. As I understand it was necessary due to the
structural life of the A-6 due to carrier takeoffs and landings. In fact as a part time
resident of 520 since 1998 (1/4 now to 3/4) I found the A-6 Intruders MUCH MORE
intrusive than the F-18, but that did not bother me either. What I do find intrusive (only) on
207 Frances) is the continual hours of engine testing which is a constant roar when it is
going on. My neighbor across the roan who built a large (permitted) cover for his house
trailer which he planned to turn into a garage when he built a home now says he will not
build on the south end on Lopez because of the engine test noise. Respectfully yours (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2272

our own military. It is the impression of many in the community that the Navy it has an
unlimited amount of fuel in which to operate its jets. There may be some restrictions but
the frequency, period and request for even more jets indicates this is not a real
constraint. We also have former aeronautical engineers who testify that noise in jet
engines indicate a lack of efficiency and increased fuel usage by those engines. A
characteristic of the First World War was the use of outdated ideology (use of cavalry by
the British against German machine guns to name one). I fear in these times of
sequestration, tight money and a general military mind-set developing new, quieter, more
efficient engines is not a priority by the military. Unfortunately, this lack of concern
heightens the problems within the community and the environment which is being
increasingly impacted to the point of a loss of a decent quality of life for present and
future generations. The EIS needs to include ways of reducing the natural and social
environmental impact through the use of more technologically advanced military systems.
The EIS should address the real limits to military growth in the area. At what point does
the constant ratcheting up of military operations become unsustainable if not at that point
already? What is the cost not just in environmental destruction but in an increased
targeting probability to the area and is it justified? This could be from a natural and social
environment perspective as well as the danger to the mission of national security overall.
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2273
You mentioned a new database for San Juan County residents. Is there a comparable
database for Island County residents to report jet noise? If so how do we use it. If not let's
get one.
(b)(6)
2274
Eastsound, WA 98245
We would like to submit the following article as representative of our view and it would
like it entered into evidence for the scoping review: Dahr Jamail | Documents Show
Navy's Electromagnetic Warfare Training Would Harm Humans and Wildlife Dahr Jamail |
Documents Show Navy's Electromagnetic Warfare Training Would Harm Humans and
Wildlife Monday, 15 December 2014 10:59 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report US Navy
gets its way, it will begin flying Growler supersonic warplanes over Olympic National
Forest and wilderness areas of the Western Olympic Peninsula next September in order
to conduct electromagnetic warfare training exercises. As Truthout previously reported,
this would entail flying 36 jets down to 1,200 feet above ground in some areas, in 2,900
training exercises lasting up to 16 hours per day, 260 days per year, with the war-gaming
going on indefinitely into the future. The Navy's plans also include having 15 mobile units
on the ground with towers emitting electromagnetic radiation signals for the planes to
locate as part of their exercises. Navy personnel have been met with outrage, anger and
a growing concern from the public about the negative health impacts to humans and
wildlife in the areas where their war games are planned.The Navy appeared to attempt to
slide their plans by the public by choosing not to advertise public comment periods and
meetings in the local media of the areas where their war games would be taking place.
However, word got out and the Navy has had to extend public comment periods and hold
more public meetings. Navy personnel have been met with outrage, anger and a growing
concern from the public about the negative health impacts to humans and wildlife in the
areas where their war games are planned. The Navy's response has been to point
people toward their own so-called environmental assessment (EA), and claim that "no
significant impacts" will occur to wildlife or humans from their electromagnetic war
games. However, Truthout has acquired several documents from the Navy, Air Force and
even NASA that directly contradict the Navy's claims that their exercises pose no threat
to wildlife and humans, and spoke with an expert on the human impact of
electromagnetic radiation fields who also refutes the Navy's claims. Dr. Martin Pall, a
professor emeritus of biochemistry and medical sciences with Washington State
University, has written several peer-reviewed papers on the subject of how
electromagnetic radiation of various levels impacts human beings, as well as given
international lectures on the subject. The health impacts of even the Navy's lowest levels
of electromagnetic radiation emissions are shocking.Pall told Truthout that these claims
by the Navy are "untrue," and provided reams of evidence, including his own scientific
reports, that document, in detail, the extremely dangerous impacts of even very low
levels of the microwave and electromagnetic radiation that the Navy would be emitting
during their war games. Pall's paper, titled "Electromagnetic fields act via activation of
voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects," outlines the
impact of electromagnetic radiation on biological organisms, and was given the honor of
being posted on the "Global Medical Discovery" site as one of the top medical papers of
2013. Pall told Truthout that the Navy has not provided "any evidence" to support their
claims that electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) do not impact wildlife and humans
deleteriously. According to Pall, a NASA study, and more then 1,000 other scientific
reports and studies, the health impacts of even the Navy's lowest levels of
electromagnetic radiation emissions are shocking. The Doctor's Opinion Pall explained
that people and agencies that advocate for the current safety standards around EMF
levels claim that we only have to be concerned about their thermal/heating effects. Pall's
aforementioned paper and the 24 studies cited within it show that the generally accepted
EMF safety standards are based on a false assumption: "that all you have to worry about
is heating." The Navy claims that there is "no conclusive evidence" that EMF radiation
harms humans or wildlife due to "inconsistent data" and "conflicting reports" on the
subject. Pall vehemently disagrees with this position. "We have a situation now where
most people in the world are exposed to microwave frequency radiation based on
scientific studies that have no scientific merit."His analysis of scientific reports and data
shows that a great number of them show harmful effects at non-thermal levels, when it is
viewed consistently according to cell types, fields and end points of studies.
Nevertheless, many of the studies claimed there were "no effects" from EMF radiation,
simply because the effects were non-thermal, despite the studies themselves showing
evidence of non-thermal effects. "So in the data there is no inconsistency whatsoever.
None," according to Pall. "This has been going on for years, and people have been
assured of safety based on these things and it is absolute nonsense," he explained. "So
we have a situation now where most people in the world are exposed to microwave
frequency radiation based on scientific studies that have no scientific merit." Pall said he
sees the entire regulating system as flawed, and there is ample scientific evidence to
back his perspective. "We know the claims that you only have to worry about heating
effects are false; there is no question on that," he said. "All the assurances of safety are
based on that assumption. So this whole thing is of great concern." According to Pall,
there is ample evidence of biological effects from EMF radiation that are "extremely
worrisome." These include cellular DNA damage that causes cancer and infertility, "and
both of these have been repeatedly reported to occur with low-level exposures."
Nevertheless, Pall added, "There are studies that don't report these, because they are
done under different conditions, and that is not surprising." "What the Navy is doing we
have no idea because they don't tell us . . . but from what little they have told us, they are
using a lot of pulse fields in wavelengths that are damaging to us."To make his point, Pall
cited an infertility study conducted with rats that showed there was less fertility with each
generation, "and by the fifth generation they were completely infertile." Pall was very
clear in his assessment of the potential impact of the Navy's EMF war-gaming plans, as
well as how EMF radiation impacts our daily lives - from cell phones, to wireless
networks, to the myriad other electronic devices that are so common today. "So what
we're doing is exposing ourselves to these fields," he said. "What the Navy is doing we
using a lot of pulse fields in wavelengths that are damaging to us, to biological
organisms. They give us not one iota of evidence of what biological effects are produced
by those fields, and don't even tell us what fields they are using. You only find empty
statements of 'don't worry about these things.'" Numerous studies back another of Pall's
points, which is that there is ample evidence that younger people are more susceptible
than older people to the harmful effects of EMF radiation. "This is why childhood
leukemia is more common than adult leukemia," Pall said. Dean Millett, the district ranger
for the Pacific district of the Olympic National Forest, has issued a draft notice of a
decision in which he had agreed with the Navy's finding of "no significant impact," which
has cleared the way for a US Forest Service special permit to be issued to the Navy for
the war games. Millet, however, insists that the decision is his to make, but claims that he
has not made a final decision yet. Millet claims to not be concerned about the impact of
2274
the Navy's war-gaming on amphibians, as well as other wildlife, including birds. "Millet's
statements about the Navy's EIS [environmental impact statement] being solid, and his
not worrying about amphibians, are interesting to me," Pall said when asked about the
position of Millet and the Forest Service. "Millet has been emailed this evidence, that
amphibians are particularly sensitive to these fields, and much of the amphibians' decline
around the world are being attributed to these fields. We also know that migrating birds
are particularly susceptible. Yet neither Millet nor the Navy has given any evidence to the
contrary, and that is not science. Science is always based on evidence." During a recent
public information meeting, the Navy told Truthout that their Growler jets would not be
emitting any EMF radiation, despite the fact that all the planes they intend to use for their
war-gaming will be "fully equipped" with all of the electromagnetic warfare weapons
available for radar jamming, and other operations. If what the Navy says is true, and that
the only EMF radiation signals emitted will be from their 15 mobile ground towers, which
they claim to be "no worse than a cell phone tower," this will still be extremely hazardous
to biological organisms in the area, according to Pall. "There are close to 1,000 studies
on electromagnetic fields that show the production of oxidated stress," he said. "So even
just using a cell phone gives you oxidative stress in your brain by breaking down your
blood brain barriers that protect you from infections and other things." Pall explained that,
according to his and numerous other studies, there are numerous neuropsychiatric
effects caused by this "low-level" EMF radiation, including depression. "They are planning
on running a huge experiment without collecting the data, so everyone out there will be
exposed and be a part of their experiment."Physical effects include heart arrhythmias and
tachycardia, "and these can lead to sudden cardiac deaths," Pall said. "Slow heartbeats
also occur at increasing rates, and these are indirect effects and they are all life
threatening. There is a lot of literature on cardiac effects on humans, and I'm writing a
paper on it right now." Pall also cited a study that showed that when young rats are
exposed to low-level EMF radiation, "you end up with middle-aged rats that have
Alzheimer's disease. Rats don't normally develop Alzheimer's." Pall cited one of the
philosophers of science whose work determined the structure of modern science, Karl
Popper, who believed the strongest type of scientific evidence is that evidence which
falsifies a theory. "So we have literally thousands of studies that have falsified the heating
paradigm for microwave fields, each of which individually have falsified the claim that all
you have to worry about is heating," Pall explained. "Now, what Popper would say then
is, obviously the statement that all you have to worry about is heating is a false claim.
You only have to falsify it once. So the only way you can claim safety is to look at each of
those individual studies and prove that it has been deeply flawed. The Navy hasn't done
that, nor has the ranger, and they haven't done it because it can't be done." Pall is
confident in this statement because in order for the Navy and Forest Service to claim the
war-gaming will be safe, they would have to test every EMF field, at every level of
frequency emission, at every distance, for every human and animal, at every age. But
instead of conducting this kind of thorough research, according to Pall, "They are
planning on running a huge experiment without collecting the data, so everyone out there
will be exposed and be a part of their experiment." A 2013 paper published in the journal
Reviews on Environmental Health, titled "Radiation from wireless technology impacts the
blood, the heart and the autonomic nervous system," lists a series of 14 different pleas
from multiple scientists who state the need for much more vigorous action on the health
effects from microwave EMFs. Nevertheless, the Navy and Forest Service maintain their
position that there would be "no significant impact" from the electromagnetic war-gaming,
2274
despite reams of well-documented scientific evidence to the contrary. Thus, Pall believes
the burden of proof lies with both the Navy and the Forest Service. "So the Navy's
response is both untrue and illogical," he said. "We know all these fields have all these
effects. So the Navy has to come up with the evidence that proves their EMF fields don't
cause all these problems. The Navy and the ranger [Millet] need to answer these
questions. I've seen no inconsistencies in the literature at this point, and what they need
to do as scientists, as opposed to propagandists, is to show that each study that falsifies
their point of view is deeply flawed, and they've not even started to do that, and there are
thousands of studies in the scientific literature." Other Studies In February 2014, Willie
Taylor, director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance with the US
Department of the Interior, sent a letter to Eli Veenendall with the US National
Telecommunications and Information Administration. In it, Taylor lists several concerns
about the impact of communication towers, as well as towers emitting "electromagnetic
radiation." "The Department recommends revisions to the proposed procedures to better
reflect the impacts to resources under our jurisdiction from communication towers,"
Taylor writes in the letter. "The placement and operation of communication towers,
including un-guyed, unlit, monopole or lattice-designed structures, impact protected
migratory birds in two significant ways. The first is by injury, crippling loss, and death from
collisions with towers and their supporting guy-wire infrastructure, where present. The
second significant issue associated with communication towers involves impacts from
non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by them." The Navy consistently claims
that their towers will only emit as much radiation as cell towers, yet this is exactly the
level of radiation cited as a problem.The letter, of which Truthout acquired a copy,
included an attachment that stated: "Radiation studies at cellular communication towers
were begun circa 2000 in Europe and continue today on wild nesting birds. Study results
have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion
problems, reduced survivorship, and death (e.g., Balmori 2005, Balmori and Hallberg
2007, and Everaert and Bauwens 2007)." The Navy consistently claims that their towers
will only emit as much radiation as cell towers, yet this is exactly the level of radiation
cited in the aforementioned letter as a problem, as well as the levels described by Pall,
the electromagnetic radiation expert. Furthermore, the letter notes that the Federal
Communications Commission continues to use outdated exposure standards when it
comes to radiation emitted from cell phone towers. "The problem," the letter continues,
"appears to focus on very low levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. For
example, in laboratory studies, T. Litovitz (personal communication) and DiCarlo et al.
(2002) raised concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation
from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos - with
some lethal results (Manville 2009, 2013a). Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the
level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the
deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while
controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002)." The letter
concludes: Balmori found strong negative correlations between levels of tower-emitted
microwave radiation and bird breeding, nesting, and roosting in the vicinity of
electromagnetic fields in Spain. He documented nest and site abandonment, plumage
deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death in House Sparrows,
White Storks, Rock Doves, Magpies, Collared Doves, and other species. Though these
species had historically been documented to roost and nest in these areas, Balmori
(2005) did not observe these symptoms prior to construction and operation of the cellular
2274
phone towers. Furthermore, a NASA study published in April 1981, titled

"Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and
Theories," was clear about the damage that EMF radiation caused to humans.
Information for the NASA report was collected from over 1,000 written sources that
"included journals, conference proceedings, technical reports, books, abstracts, and
news items," and "additional sources included in-person meetings, telephone interviews,
and lecture tapes." "Both theories and observations link non-ionizing electromagnetic
fields to cancer in humans," the report notes. "Man is changing his terrestrial
electromagnetic environment . . . If he knew the consequences of these changes, he
might wish to compensate for or enhance them." The study "is concerned chiefly with
those lower frequencies" of EMF radiation, just as are most of the aforementioned
studies as well as Pall's work, all of which obviously applies to the impact of the Navy's
claims that only their towers would be emitting signals, and not their Growler warplanes.
As for adverse effects from EMF radiation, the report states, "Some result in death and
persistent disease," with other impacts being "ventricular fibrillation and sudden infant
death syndrome," "cataracts," "accelerated aging," and that electromagnetic fields "may
promote cancer" and cause a "decrease in sex function." Aircraft noise, another issue
related to the Navy's war-gaming plans, has also been noted as biologically harmful by
the Navy itself.The NASA study lists dozens of other human health impacts, and one of
the tables in the report, titled, "Subjective effects on persons working in radio frequency
electromagnetic fields," lists symptoms that include hypotension, exhausting influence on
the central nervous system, decrease in sensitivity to smell, periodic or extreme
headaches, extreme irritability, increased fatigability, and intensification of the activity of
the thyroid gland. Further evidence comes from Swiss Re, a group which describes itself
as "a leading wholesale provider of reinsurance, insurance and other insurance-based
forms of risk transfer," which released their own risk assessment report, within which they
listed "emerging risk topics" which could impact the insurance industry in the future. The
report lists "unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields" as having "high potential
impact." Aircraft noise, another issue related to the Navy's war-gaming plans, has also
been noted as biologically harmful by the Navy itself. According to the Naval Research
Advisory Committee's April 2009 "Report on Jet Engine Noise Reduction," jet noise is
described as "a problem" and the Navy was advised to take "actions to reduce noise in
existing and next generation tactical jet aircraft engines." Noise-Induced Hearing Loss
For every three decibels over 85, the permissible exposure time before hearing damage
can occur is cut in half. Decibel level Example and Permissible Exposure Time 30
Whisper 45 Refrigerator humming, rainfall 60 Normal conversation 85 Heavy city traffic; 8
hours 95 Motorcycles; 1 hour 105 MP3 player at maximum volume; 7.5 minutes 113
Older Navy jets at 1,000 feet; less than 1 minute 120 Sirens; less than 30 seconds 150
Gun muzzle blast, Growler jets at takeoff. (No noise levels exist for Growlers flying in trios
at 1,200 feet.) INSTANTANEOUS HEARING LOSS Sources: Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health The report also
acknowledges that the US Department of Veterans Affairs was spending more than $1
billion annually on hearing loss cases alone, as well as the fact that the Navy's jet noise
is "a serious health risk," and that despite this, "tactical jet noise levels have increased as
the velocity and airflow from these engines have increased to produce added thrust." The
executive summary of this report states that the ongoing hearing loss issues and efforts
toward increasing hearing protection of Navy personnel will "Require further development
of noise abatement procedures to minimize the noise footprint around Naval and Marine
2274
Air Stations. And finally, it will require more research into the physiological effects of the
full spectrum of noise - including low frequency pressure levels - on humans." As for
impact on wildlife, Dr. Robert Beason, a professor of biology at the State University of
New York at Geneseo, speaking at a workshop titled "Avian Mortality at Communications
Towers" sponsored by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Ornithological Council, and
the American Bird Conservancy, made several statements of concern about the impact of
microwave signals and other electromagnetic radiation from communication towers
similar to the towers the Navy plans to use for their warfare training. "Peter Semm and I
have found that a pulsed microwave signal results in changes in the rate of spontaneous
activity of superficial neurons in the avian brain," Beason said. "These responses are
occurring in higher centers of the brain, not in the lower centers where they could be
filtered out." He concluded his presentation urging caution, and clearly stating that more
work needs to be done to safeguard migratory birds in regards to radio and
electromagnetic radiation emitting towers located where they fly. "There are numerous
questions related to the features of communication towers for which we lack basic
knowledge of either the neural or the behavioral responses of the birds," Beason said.
"Gaining this type of information is paramount in determining what features of these
towers can be modified in such a way to decrease their attractiveness to birds to allow
communication field engineers to design and construct these towers in such a way to
reduce the impact on migratory birds." Navy Admits Harmful Biological Effects On
October 4, 1971, the Naval Medical Research Institute published a research report
written by Dr. Zorach Glaser, of which Truthout acquired a copy. The title of the report is
"Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena ('Effects') and Clinical Manifestations
Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation." Given that the Navy continues
to claim that their EMR warfare training exercises will have "no significant impact" on
humans, it is interesting to note that their own research paper's abstract states: More
than 2,000 references on the biological responses to [microwave and] radio frequency
and microwave radiation, published up to June 1971, are included in the bibliography.
(Three supplementary listings bring the number of citation to more than 2,300.) Particular
attention has been paid to the effects on man of non-ionizing radiation at these
frequencies. The Navy's paper lists well over 100 negative biological effects caused by
microwave and radio frequency radiations, of which here is a partial list from their report:
corneal damage, tubular degeneration of testicles, brain heating, alteration of the
diameter of blood vessels, liver enlargement, altered sex ratio of births, decreased
fertility, sterility, altered fetal development, decreased lactation in nursing mothers,
altered penal function, death, cranial nerve disorders, seizures, convulsions, depression,
insomnia, hand tremors, chest pain, thrombosis, alteration in the rate of cellular division,
anorexia, constipation, altered adrenal cortex activity, chromosome aberrations, tumors,
altered orientation of animals, birds and fish, loss of hair, and sparking between dental
fillings. Pall found the report notable, and suggested that in order to prove there are no
biological effects possible from their EMR warfare training, the Navy would need to
provide a specific response to each of the studies cited in their own report. "What they
need to show is that none of the over 2,000 studies that should be well known to them
are not relevant to their planned tests for the Olympic peninsula," Pall said. "Those
studies date, of course from before late 1971 and there have been many thousands of
apparently relevant studies published since that time, but perhaps they should start with
these studies which were important enough to be cited by the Naval Medical Research
Institute in 1971." US Air Force Acknowledges Health Effects A June 1994 US Air Force
2274
document, titled, "Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety

Standards: A Review," authored by Scott Bolen, clearly acknowledges the non-thermal
health effects. "It is known that electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on
human tissue."The report, signed and vetted by the US Air Force Chief of the Wide Area
Radar Surveillance Division and the US Air Force Deputy Director of the Surveillance and
Photonics Department, states in its abstract, "It is known that electromagnetic radiation
has a biological effect on human tissue." The introduction of the report states that
"researchers have discovered a number of biological dysfunctions that can occur in living
organisms" and that "exposure of the human body to RF/MW [radio
frequency/microwave] radiation has many biological implications" that range from
"innocuous sensation of warmth to serious physiological damage to the eye," and added
that "there is also evidence that RF/MW radiation can cause cancer." The report goes on
to acknowledge that RF/MW radiation "is known to have a biological effect on animals
and humans" and lists biological impacts like "damage to major organs, disruption of
important biological processes, and the potential risk of cancer," among many others
which include "mutagenic effects," "cardiovascular effects," negative effects on
chromosomes, and notes that "Soviet investigators claim that exposure to low-level
radiation can induce serious CNS [central nervous system] dysfunctions." Ongoing
Concerns Olympic Peninsula resident Karen Sullivan worked for the US Fish and Wildlife
Service for 15 and a half years, in Delaware, Washington, DC, and from 1998 through
2006 in Alaska. She worked in the Division of Endangered Species, External Affairs, and
spent the last seven years as assistant regional director for External Affairs, which
covered all media and congressional interaction and correspondence, plus outreach,
publications and tribal grants for the Alaska region. "How can Navy jets be allowed to fly
over wilderness areas and do what they do, and potentially destroy a wilderness
soundscape that exists within a wilderness area? How can that be legal?"She called the
Navy's so-called environmental assessment "bogus" because "it is old and not of broad
enough scope." "It's baffling to try to pin down what they [the Navy] are doing on paper,
but it is nonetheless very obvious what they are doing," she said. "It's certainly not in the
public interest and certainly takes away from the public trust of these lands. How can
Navy jets be allowed to fly over wilderness areas and do what they do, and potentially
destroy a wilderness soundscape that exists within a wilderness area? How can that be
legal? I can't understand." Dr. Pete Lauritzen, a professor emeritus of engineering from
the University of Washington, recently attended a Navy public information scoping
session in order to find out specifics about the types and intensities of radiation that will
be used in the Navy's war games, but was frustrated by the Navy's lack of forthrightness.
Nearly 400 people attended the scoping session, most of who expressed their concerns
by filing official comments to the Navy. The US Navy has held several "scoping sessions"
where they invited the public to provide comments about the war-gaming plans. Each
session became increasingly crowded, with the vast majority of those providing comment
being opposed to the Navy's plans. Former US Fish and Wildlife employee Karen
Sullivan who attended a recent Navy scoping session (not pictured) told Truthout, "The
Navy is behaving in a way that makes their sense of entitlement very obvious." Lauritzen
was frank about what should be done. "My general concern is that the EIS
[environmental impact statement] should be done by an independent party that is reliable
and has a good reputation. But the Navy is doing their own EIS, so that means they are
withholding information and only giving out what they want, and being quite vague on
specifics," he said. Port Townsend Mayor David King, who expressed his concerns with
2274
the Navy's plans of increasing the number of jets and ensuing noise pollution. (Photo:
Dahr Jamail) David King, the mayor of Port Townsend, a small town on the northeast tip
of the Olympic Peninsula that would be heavily impacted by increased jet noise as well
as affected economically from the Navy's plans, was also present at the Navy's recent
scoping meeting in his town to express his concerns. "My main concern is that over the
last year we've heard much more noise impacts than we've heard in prior years," King
told Truthout. "And a further expansion of the Growler fleet seems to me to indicate that
that situation will only get worse." King plans to talk with city officials in other towns and
cities that will be impacted by the Navy's plans. Truthout contacted the Navy and asked if
the Navy had conducted studies that would disprove the more than 1,000 studies and
papers that show negative impacts on biological organisms resulting from EMF radiation,
and if so, where could the results be viewed. Naval Public Affairs Officer Mike Welding
provided the following response: The Navy uses the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) "Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," to make its determinations. The
IEEE standard serves as a consensus standard developed by representatives of industry,
government agencies, the scientific community and the public. Additionally, the Navy has
a long history of using these systems safely and employed them successfully to provide
our aviators the training they need without incident or adverse effects. Welding also
provided the "NAS Whidbey Island's Electronic Warfare fact sheet," which repeatedly
stated that the Navy's war-gaming has "no adverse effects to people or the environment,"
but failed to provide any evidence to support these claims. Welding did not provide any
specific response to Truthout's aforementioned questions addressing the scientifically
proven negative impacts of EMF radiation on biological organisms. Sullivan, the Olympic
Peninsula resident, is frustrated by the Navy's ongoing lack of adequate responses to
people who are concerned about the possible war-gaming, and was frank about what she
thought would be required to stop the electromagnetic warfare training plans for the
Western Olympic Peninsula. "The Navy is behaving in a way that makes their sense of
entitlement very obvious," she said. "And I have been told by a congressional staffer that
this is probably going to have to be settled in court." Copyright, Truthout. May not be
reprinted without permission. Dahr Jamail Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the
author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan,
(Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an
Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq, (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported
from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over
the last ten years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism,
among other awards. His fourth book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is
Happening, and Who Is Responsible, co-written with William Rivers Pitt, is available now
on Amazon. He lives and works in Washington State. Dahr Jamail | Documents Show
Navy's Electromagnetic Warfare Training Would Harm Humans and Wildlife Dahr Jamail |
Documents Show Navy's Electromagnetic Warfare Training Would Harm Humans and
Wildlife Monday, 15 December 2014 10:59 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report US Navy
gets its way, it will begin flying Growler supersonic warplanes over Olympic National
Forest and wilderness areas of the Western Olympic Peninsula next September in order
to conduct electromagnetic warfare training exercises. As Truthout previously reported,
this would entail flying 36 jets down to 1,200 feet above ground in some areas, in 2,900
training exercises lasting up to 16 hours per day, 260 days per year, with the war-gaming
going on indefinitely into the future. The Navy's plans also include having 15 mobile units
2274
on the ground with towers emitting electromagnetic radiation signals for the planes to
locate as part of their exercises. Navy personnel have been met with outrage, anger and
a growing concern from the public about the negative health impacts to humans and
wildlife in the areas where their war games are planned.The Navy appeared to attempt to
slide their plans by the public by choosing not to advertise public comment periods and
meetings in the local media of the areas where their war games would be taking place.
However, word got out and the Navy has had to extend public comment periods and hold
more public meetings. Navy personnel have been met with outrage, anger and a growing
concern from the public about the negative health impacts to humans and wildlife in the
areas where their war games are planned. The Navy's response has been to point
people toward their own so-called environmental assessment (EA), and claim that "no
significant impacts" will occur to wildlife or humans from their electromagnetic war
games. However, Truthout has acquired several documents from the Navy, Air Force and
even NASA that directly contradict the Navy's claims that their exercises pose no threat
to wildlife and humans, and spoke with an expert on the human impact of
electromagnetic radiation fields who also refutes the Navy's claims. Dr. Martin Pall, a
professor emeritus of biochemistry and medical sciences with Washington State
University, has written several peer-reviewed papers on the subject of how
electromagnetic radiation of various levels impacts human beings, as well as given
international lectures on the subject. The health impacts of even the Navy's lowest levels
of electromagnetic radiation emissions are shocking.Pall told Truthout that these claims
by the Navy are "untrue," and provided reams of evidence, including his own scientific
reports, that document, in detail, the extremely dangerous impacts of even very low
levels of the microwave and electromagnetic radiation that the Navy would be emitting
during their war games. Pall's paper, titled "Electromagnetic fields act via activation of
voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects," outlines the
impact of electromagnetic radiation on biological organisms, and was given the honor of
being posted on the "Global Medical Discovery" site as one of the top medical papers of
2013. Pall told Truthout that the Navy has not provided "any evidence" to support their
claims that electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) do not impact wildlife and humans
deleteriously. According to Pall, a NASA study, and more then 1,000 other scientific
reports and studies, the health impacts of even the Navy's lowest levels of
electromagnetic radiation emissions are shocking. The Doctor's Opinion Pall explained
that people and agencies that advocate for the current safety standards around EMF
levels claim that we only have to be concerned about their thermal/heating effects. Pall's
aforementioned paper and the 24 studies cited within it show that the generally accepted
EMF safety standards are based on a false assumption: "that all you have to worry about
is heating." The Navy claims that there is "no conclusive evidence" that EMF radiation
harms humans or wildlife due to "inconsistent data" and "conflicting reports" on the
subject. Pall vehemently disagrees with this position. "We have a situation now where
most people in the world are exposed to microwave frequency radiation based on
scientific studies that have no scientific merit."His analysis of scientific reports and data
shows that a great number of them show harmful effects at non-thermal levels, when it is
viewed consistently according to cell types, fields and end points of studies.
Nevertheless, many of the studies claimed there were "no effects" from EMF radiation,
simply because the effects were non-thermal, despite the studies themselves showing
evidence of non-thermal effects. "So in the data there is no inconsistency whatsoever.
None," according to Pall. "This has been going on for years, and people have been
2274
assured of safety based on these things and it is absolute nonsense," he explained. "So
we have a situation now where most people in the world are exposed to microwave
frequency radiation based on scientific studies that have no scientific merit." Pall said he
sees the entire regulating system as flawed, and there is ample scientific evidence to
back his perspective. "We know the claims that you only have to worry about heating
effects are false; there is no question on that," he said. "All the assurances of safety are
based on that assumption. So this whole thing is of great concern." According to Pall,
there is ample evidence of biological effects from EMF radiation that are "extremely
worrisome." These include cellular DNA damage that causes cancer and infertility, "and
both of these have been repeatedly reported to occur with low-level exposures."
Nevertheless, Pall added, "There are studies that don't report these, because they are
done under different conditions, and that is not surprising." "What the Navy is doing we
using a lot of pulse fields in wavelengths that are damaging to us."To make his point, Pall
cited an infertility study conducted with rats that showed there was less fertility with each
generation, "and by the fifth generation they were completely infertile." Pall was very
clear in his assessment of the potential impact of the Navy's EMF war-gaming plans, as
well as how EMF radiation impacts our daily lives - from cell phones, to wireless
networks, to the myriad other electronic devices that are so common today. "So what
we're doing is exposing ourselves to these fields," he said. "What the Navy is doing we
using a lot of pulse fields in wavelengths that are damaging to us, to biological
organisms. They give us not one iota of evidence of what biological effects are produced
by those fields, and don't even tell us what fields they are using. You only find empty
statements of 'don't worry about these things.'" Numerous studies back another of Pall's
points, which is that there is ample evidence that younger people are more susceptible
than older people to the harmful effects of EMF radiation. "This is why childhood
leukemia is more common than adult leukemia," Pall said. Dean Millett, the district ranger
for the Pacific district of the Olympic National Forest, has issued a draft notice of a
decision in which he had agreed with the Navy's finding of "no significant impact," which
has cleared the way for a US Forest Service special permit to be issued to the Navy for
the war games. Millet, however, insists that the decision is his to make, but claims that he
has not made a final decision yet. Millet claims to not be concerned about the impact of
the Navy's war-gaming on amphibians, as well as other wildlife, including birds. "Millet's
statements about the Navy's EIS [environmental impact statement] being solid, and his
not worrying about amphibians, are interesting to me," Pall said when asked about the
position of Millet and the Forest Service. "Millet has been emailed this evidence, that
amphibians are particularly sensitive to these fields, and much of the amphibians' decline
around the world are being attributed to these fields. We also know that migrating birds
are particularly susceptible. Yet neither Millet nor the Navy has given any evidence to the
contrary, and that is not science. Science is always based on evidence." During a recent
public information meeting, the Navy told Truthout that their Growler jets would not be
emitting any EMF radiation, despite the fact that all the planes they intend to use for their
war-gaming will be "fully equipped" with all of the electromagnetic warfare weapons
available for radar jamming, and other operations. If what the Navy says is true, and that
the only EMF radiation signals emitted will be from their 15 mobile ground towers, which
they claim to be "no worse than a cell phone tower," this will still be extremely hazardous
to biological organisms in the area, according to Pall. "There are close to 1,000 studies
2274
on electromagnetic fields that show the production of oxidated stress," he said. "So even
just using a cell phone gives you oxidative stress in your brain by breaking down your
blood brain barriers that protect you from infections and other things." Pall explained that,
according to his and numerous other studies, there are numerous neuropsychiatric
effects caused by this "low-level" EMF radiation, including depression. "They are planning
on running a huge experiment without collecting the data, so everyone out there will be
exposed and be a part of their experiment."Physical effects include heart arrhythmias and
tachycardia, "and these can lead to sudden cardiac deaths," Pall said. "Slow heartbeats
also occur at increasing rates, and these are indirect effects and they are all life
threatening. There is a lot of literature on cardiac effects on humans, and I'm writing a
paper on it right now." Pall also cited a study that showed that when young rats are
exposed to low-level EMF radiation, "you end up with middle-aged rats that have
Alzheimer's disease. Rats don't normally develop Alzheimer's." Pall cited one of the
philosophers of science whose work determined the structure of modern science, Karl
Popper, who believed the strongest type of scientific evidence is that evidence which
falsifies a theory. "So we have literally thousands of studies that have falsified the heating
paradigm for microwave fields, each of which individually have falsified the claim that all
you have to worry about is heating," Pall explained. "Now, what Popper would say then
is, obviously the statement that all you have to worry about is heating is a false claim.
You only have to falsify it once. So the only way you can claim safety is to look at each of
those individual studies and prove that it has been deeply flawed. The Navy hasn't done
that, nor has the ranger, and they haven't done it because it can't be done." Pall is
confident in this statement because in order for the Navy and Forest Service to claim the
war-gaming will be safe, they would have to test every EMF field, at every level of
frequency emission, at every distance, for every human and animal, at every age. But
instead of conducting this kind of thorough research, according to Pall, "They are
planning on running a huge experiment without collecting the data, so everyone out there
will be exposed and be a part of their experiment." A 2013 paper published in the journal
Reviews on Environmental Health, titled "Radiation from wireless technology impacts the
blood, the heart and the autonomic nervous system," lists a series of 14 different pleas
from multiple scientists who state the need for much more vigorous action on the health
effects from microwave EMFs. Nevertheless, the Navy and Forest Service maintain their
position that there would be "no significant impact" from the electromagnetic war-gaming,
despite reams of well-documented scientific evidence to the contrary. Thus, Pall believes
the burden of proof lies with both the Navy and the Forest Service. "So the Navy's
response is both untrue and illogical," he said. "We know all these fields have all these
effects. So the Navy has to come up with the evidence that proves their EMF fields don't
cause all these problems. The Navy and the ranger [Millet] need to answer these
questions. I've seen no inconsistencies in the literature at this point, and what they need
to do as scientists, as opposed to propagandists, is to show that each study that falsifies
their point of view is deeply flawed, and they've not even started to do that, and there are
thousands of studies in the scientific literature." Other Studies In February 2014, Willie
Taylor, director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance with the US
Department of the Interior, sent a letter to Eli Veenendall with the US National
Telecommunications and Information Administration. In it, Taylor lists several concerns
about the impact of communication towers, as well as towers emitting "electromagnetic
radiation." "The Department recommends revisions to the proposed procedures to better
reflect the impacts to resources under our jurisdiction from communication towers,"
2274
Taylor writes in the letter. "The placement and operation of communication towers,
including un-guyed, unlit, monopole or lattice-designed structures, impact protected
migratory birds in two significant ways. The first is by injury, crippling loss, and death from
collisions with towers and their supporting guy-wire infrastructure, where present. The
second significant issue associated with communication towers involves impacts from
non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by them." The Navy consistently claims
that their towers will only emit as much radiation as cell towers, yet this is exactly the
level of radiation cited as a problem.The letter, of which Truthout acquired a copy,
included an attachment that stated: "Radiation studies at cellular communication towers
were begun circa 2000 in Europe and continue today on wild nesting birds. Study results
have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion
problems, reduced survivorship, and death (e.g., Balmori 2005, Balmori and Hallberg
2007, and Everaert and Bauwens 2007)." The Navy consistently claims that their towers
will only emit as much radiation as cell towers, yet this is exactly the level of radiation
cited in the aforementioned letter as a problem, as well as the levels described by Pall,
the electromagnetic radiation expert. Furthermore, the letter notes that the Federal
Communications Commission continues to use outdated exposure standards when it
comes to radiation emitted from cell phone towers. "The problem," the letter continues,
"appears to focus on very low levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. For
example, in laboratory studies, T. Litovitz (personal communication) and DiCarlo et al.
(2002) raised concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation
from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos - with
some lethal results (Manville 2009, 2013a). Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the
level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the
deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while
controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002)." The letter
concludes: Balmori found strong negative correlations between levels of tower-emitted
microwave radiation and bird breeding, nesting, and roosting in the vicinity of
electromagnetic fields in Spain. He documented nest and site abandonment, plumage
deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death in House Sparrows,
White Storks, Rock Doves, Magpies, Collared Doves, and other species. Though these
species had historically been documented to roost and nest in these areas, Balmori
(2005) did not observe these symptoms prior to construction and operation of the cellular
phone towers. Furthermore, a NASA study published in April 1981, titled
"Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and
Theories," was clear about the damage that EMF radiation caused to humans.
Information for the NASA report was collected from over 1,000 written sources that
"included journals, conference proceedings, technical reports, books, abstracts, and
news items," and "additional sources included in-person meetings, telephone interviews,
and lecture tapes." "Both theories and observations link non-ionizing electromagnetic
fields to cancer in humans," the report notes. "Man is changing his terrestrial
electromagnetic environment . . . If he knew the consequences of these changes, he
might wish to compensate for or enhance them." The study "is concerned chiefly with
those lower frequencies" of EMF radiation, just as are most of the aforementioned
studies as well as Pall's work, all of which obviously applies to the impact of the Navy's
claims that only their towers would be emitting signals, and not their Growler warplanes.
As for adverse effects from EMF radiation, the report states, "Some result in death and
persistent disease," with other impacts being "ventricular fibrillation and sudden infant
2274
death syndrome," "cataracts," "accelerated aging," and that electromagnetic fields "may
promote cancer" and cause a "decrease in sex function." Aircraft noise, another issue
the Navy itself.The NASA study lists dozens of other human health impacts, and one of
the tables in the report, titled, "Subjective effects on persons working in radio frequency
electromagnetic fields," lists symptoms that include hypotension, exhausting influence on
the central nervous system, decrease in sensitivity to smell, periodic or extreme
headaches, extreme irritability, increased fatigability, and intensification of the activity of
the thyroid gland. Further evidence comes from Swiss Re, a group which describes itself
as "a leading wholesale provider of reinsurance, insurance and other insurance-based
forms of risk transfer," which released their own risk assessment report, within which they
listed "emerging risk topics" which could impact the insurance industry in the future. The
report lists "unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields" as having "high potential
impact." Aircraft noise, another issue related to the Navy's war-gaming plans, has also
been noted as biologically harmful by the Navy itself. According to the Naval Research
Advisory Committee's April 2009 "Report on Jet Engine Noise Reduction," jet noise is
described as "a problem" and the Navy was advised to take "actions to reduce noise in
existing and next generation tactical jet aircraft engines." Noise-Induced Hearing Loss
For every three decibels over 85, the permissible exposure time before hearing damage
can occur is cut in half. Decibel level Example and Permissible Exposure Time 30
Whisper 45 Refrigerator humming, rainfall 60 Normal conversation 85 Heavy city traffic; 8
hours 95 Motorcycles; 1 hour 105 MP3 player at maximum volume; 7.5 minutes 113
Older Navy jets at 1,000 feet; less than 1 minute 120 Sirens; less than 30 seconds 150
Gun muzzle blast, Growler jets at takeoff. (No noise levels exist for Growlers flying in trios
at 1,200 feet.) INSTANTANEOUS HEARING LOSS Sources: Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health The report also
acknowledges that the US Department of Veterans Affairs was spending more than $1
billion annually on hearing loss cases alone, as well as the fact that the Navy's jet noise
is "a serious health risk," and that despite this, "tactical jet noise levels have increased as
the velocity and airflow from these engines have increased to produce added thrust." The
executive summary of this report states that the ongoing hearing loss issues and efforts
toward increasing hearing protection of Navy personnel will "Require further development
of noise abatement procedures to minimize the noise footprint around Naval and Marine
Air Stations. And finally, it will require more research into the physiological effects of the
full spectrum of noise - including low frequency pressure levels - on humans." As for
impact on wildlife, Dr. Robert Beason, a professor of biology at the State University of
New York at Geneseo, speaking at a workshop titled "Avian Mortality at Communications
Towers" sponsored by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Ornithological Council, and
the American Bird Conservancy, made several statements of concern about the impact of
microwave signals and other electromagnetic radiation from communication towers
similar to the towers the Navy plans to use for their warfare training. "Peter Semm and I
have found that a pulsed microwave signal results in changes in the rate of spontaneous
activity of superficial neurons in the avian brain," Beason said. "These responses are
occurring in higher centers of the brain, not in the lower centers where they could be
filtered out." He concluded his presentation urging caution, and clearly stating that more
work needs to be done to safeguard migratory birds in regards to radio and
electromagnetic radiation emitting towers located where they fly. "There are numerous
questions related to the features of communication towers for which we lack basic
2274
knowledge of either the neural or the behavioral responses of the birds," Beason said.
"Gaining this type of information is paramount in determining what features of these
towers can be modified in such a way to decrease their attractiveness to birds to allow
communication field engineers to design and construct these towers in such a way to
reduce the impact on migratory birds." Navy Admits Harmful Biological Effects On
October 4, 1971, the Naval Medical Research Institute published a research report
written by Dr. Zorach Glaser, of which Truthout acquired a copy. The title of the report is
"Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena ('Effects') and Clinical Manifestations
Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation." Given that the Navy continues
to claim that their EMR warfare training exercises will have "no significant impact" on
humans, it is interesting to note that their own research paper's abstract states: More
than 2,000 references on the biological responses to [microwave and] radio frequency
and microwave radiation, published up to June 1971, are included in the bibliography.
(Three supplementary listings bring the number of citation to more than 2,300.) Particular
attention has been paid to the effects on man of non-ionizing radiation at these
frequencies. The Navy's paper lists well over 100 negative biological effects caused by
microwave and radio frequency radiations, of which here is a partial list from their report:
corneal damage, tubular degeneration of testicles, brain heating, alteration of the
diameter of blood vessels, liver enlargement, altered sex ratio of births, decreased
fertility, sterility, altered fetal development, decreased lactation in nursing mothers,
altered penal function, death, cranial nerve disorders, seizures, convulsions, depression,
insomnia, hand tremors, chest pain, thrombosis, alteration in the rate of cellular division,
anorexia, constipation, altered adrenal cortex activity, chromosome aberrations, tumors,
altered orientation of animals, birds and fish, loss of hair, and sparking between dental
fillings. Pall found the report notable, and suggested that in order to prove there are no
biological effects possible from their EMR warfare training, the Navy would need to
provide a specific response to each of the studies cited in their own report. "What they
need to show is that none of the over 2,000 studies that should be well known to them
are not relevant to their planned tests for the Olympic peninsula," Pall said. "Those
studies date, of course from before late 1971 and there have been many thousands of
apparently relevant studies published since that time, but perhaps they should start with
these studies which were important enough to be cited by the Naval Medical Research
Institute in 1971." US Air Force Acknowledges Health Effects A June 1994 US Air Force
document, titled, "Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety
Standards: A Review," authored by Scott Bolen, clearly acknowledges the non-thermal
health effects. "It is known that electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on
human tissue."The report, signed and vetted by the US Air Force Chief of the Wide Area
Radar Surveillance Division and the US Air Force Deputy Director of the Surveillance and
Photonics Department, states in its abstract, "It is known that electromagnetic radiation
has a biological effect on human tissue." The introduction of the report states that
"researchers have discovered a number of biological dysfunctions that can occur in living
organisms" and that "exposure of the human body to RF/MW [radio
frequency/microwave] radiation has many biological implications" that range from
"innocuous sensation of warmth to serious physiological damage to the eye," and added
that "there is also evidence that RF/MW radiation can cause cancer." The report goes on
to acknowledge that RF/MW radiation "is known to have a biological effect on animals
and humans" and lists biological impacts like "damage to major organs, disruption of
important biological processes, and the potential risk of cancer," among many others
2274
which include "mutagenic effects," "cardiovascular effects," negative effects on

chromosomes, and notes that "Soviet investigators claim that exposure to low-level
radiation can induce serious CNS [central nervous system] dysfunctions." Ongoing
Concerns Olympic Peninsula resident Karen Sullivan worked for the US Fish and Wildlife
Service for 15 and a half years, in Delaware, Washington, DC, and from 1998 through
2006 in Alaska. She worked in the Division of Endangered Species, External Affairs, and
spent the last seven years as assistant regional director for External Affairs, which
covered all media and congressional interaction and correspondence, plus outreach,
publications and tribal grants for the Alaska region. "How can Navy jets be allowed to fly
over wilderness areas and do what they do, and potentially destroy a wilderness
soundscape that exists within a wilderness area? How can that be legal?"She called the
Navy's so-called environmental assessment "bogus" because "it is old and not of broad
enough scope." "It's baffling to try to pin down what they [the Navy] are doing on paper,
but it is nonetheless very obvious what they are doing," she said. "It's certainly not in the
public interest and certainly takes away from the public trust of these lands. How can
Navy jets be allowed to fly over wilderness areas and do what they do, and potentially
destroy a wilderness soundscape that exists within a wilderness area? How can that be
legal? I can't understand." Dr. Pete Lauritzen, a professor emeritus of engineering from
the University of Washington, recently attended a Navy public information scoping
session in order to find out specifics about the types and intensities of radiation that will
be used in the Navy's war games, but was frustrated by the Navy's lack of forthrightness.
Nearly 400 people attended the scoping session, most of who expressed their concerns
by filing official comments to the Navy. The US Navy has held several "scoping sessions"
where they invited the public to provide comments about the war-gaming plans. Each
session became increasingly crowded, with the vast majority of those providing comment
being opposed to the Navy's plans. Former US Fish and Wildlife employee Karen
Sullivan who attended a recent Navy scoping session (not pictured) told Truthout, "The
Navy is behaving in a way that makes their sense of entitlement very obvious." Lauritzen
was frank about what should be done. "My general concern is that the EIS
[environmental impact statement] should be done by an independent party that is reliable
and has a good reputation. But the Navy is doing their own EIS, so that means they are
withholding information and only giving out what they want, and being quite vague on
specifics," he said. Port Townsend Mayor David King, who expressed his concerns with
the Navy's plans of increasing the number of jets and ensuing noise pollution. (Photo:
Dahr Jamail) David King, the mayor of Port Townsend, a small town on the northeast tip
of the Olympic Peninsula that would be heavily impacted by increased jet noise as well
as affected economically from the Navy's plans, was also present at the Navy's recent
scoping meeting in his town to express his concerns. "My main concern is that over the
last year we've heard much more noise impacts than we've heard in prior years," King
told Truthout. "And a further expansion of the Growler fleet seems to me to indicate that
that situation will only get worse." King plans to talk with city officials in other towns and
cities that will be impacted by the Navy's plans. Truthout contacted the Navy and asked if
the Navy had conducted studies that would disprove the more than 1,000 studies and
papers that show negative impacts on biological organisms resulting from EMF radiation,
and if so, where could the results be viewed. Naval Public Affairs Officer Mike Welding
provided the following response: The Navy uses the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) "Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," to make its determinations. The
2274
IEEE standard serves as a consensus standard developed by representatives of industry,

government agencies, the scientific community and the public. Additionally, the Navy has
a long history of using these systems safely and employed them successfully to provide
our aviators the training they need without incident or adverse effects. Welding also
provided the "NAS Whidbey Island's Electronic Warfare fact sheet," which repeatedly
stated that the Navy's war-gaming has "no adverse effects to people or the environment,"
but failed to provide any evidence to support these claims. Welding did not provide any
specific response to Truthout's aforementioned questions addressing the scientifically
proven negative impacts of EMF radiation on biological organisms. Sullivan, the Olympic
Peninsula resident, is frustrated by the Navy's ongoing lack of adequate responses to
people who are concerned about the possible war-gaming, and was frank about what she
thought would be required to stop the electromagnetic warfare training plans for the
Western Olympic Peninsula. "The Navy is behaving in a way that makes their sense of
entitlement very obvious," she said. "And I have been told by a congressional staffer that
this is probably going to have to be settled in court." Copyright, Truthout. May not be
reprinted without permission. Dahr Jamail Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the
author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan,
(Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an
Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq, (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported
from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over
the last ten years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism,
among other awards. His fourth book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is
Happening, and Who Is Responsible, co-written with William Rivers Pitt, is available now
on Amazon. He lives and works in Washington State.
2274
(b)(6)
2275

i live directly across from Coupeville, your jets fly right in front of my house. I barely notice
the noise, I'm inside. We have bald eagle in our trees, a barn owl nest in the trees, and
herons land in our trees regularly. Not once have I ever seen any of these birds, our
dogs, or the deer thT wonder in, running away at the noise. In fact they don't appear to
notice. Keep up the good work, buy up all the complainers homes under eminent domain,
so the rest of us who appreciate you can stop hearing their whining. They knew about the
noise. I
(b)(6)
2276

I believe our National Defense is First and foremost in this day and age. America is
continually threatened by those that want to see our country fall and Re jealous of our
freedom! We need Whidbey Naval Airstation to train our Naval aviators. why would
people move to this area without first investigating the area. My wife and I made 7 visits
here at different times of the year and were perfectly aware Of the Air Base. We live
about 4 miles from Ault field and have learned to ignore the aircraft sound for the most
part. The Military and training are a part of our country's life and if one doesn't like it,
maybe the middle of Alaska would be quieter. The Navy is the Island biggest employer
and they contribute millions of dollars to our economy. Loose the Navy and the economy
will fail.
(b)(6)
2277
I became a resident of Whidbey Island in 2006. At our home near West Beach and
Libbey Rd., we originally heard the Prowlers every once in awhile over our home, and it
was rarely bothersome. The Growlers, while louder, are still only moderately disruptive.
However, I have been in areas close by the OLF when Growlers were flying over, and
could not believe the high level of noise. I cannot even imagine the distress that residents
of the those areas must be experiencing. While they were supposed to have been
notified of the air activity at the time of their purchase of those nearby properties, in no
way could they have been prepared for the increase in noise due to the transition from
the Prowler to the Growler, and the increased number of flights. It is unconscionable to
subject humans and animals to that level of noise on a regular basis. And now the plan is
to increase the number of jets and flights. While I understand the need for the training of
pilots, it is the responsibility of the Navy to find an area to conduct that training that is
much further removed from human habitation. It is also the responsibility of the Navy to
make certain that there is enough of a buffer of land around the practice field to prevent
development too close to such a field. The only mission of the U.S. military forces is to
protect the American people, which is completely inconsistent with inflicting pain and
creating dangerously injurious conditions for an unlucky group of Americans. This
environmental impact statement has no value unless it is from a perspective allowing a
view of the forest from outside the trees.
(b)(6)
2278

Im a Lopez Island Southenderin other words, I have front-row seats to the Growler
action. I am in no way against US defense as a whole, but I believe the Growlers now,
and as projected, are causing real damage to the lives of the citizens and environment
they are meant to protect. There must be ways to compromise. Please take these
recommendations into account. In the 2012 EA, Figure 3-4, Projected 2013 DNL Noise
Contours for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville indicates that San Juan County (SJC) is
outside the affected area. This does not reflect citizen experience. We experience
Growler activity that is loud and disruptive. Possible factors may include flights at lower
elevation than assumed and ducting of jet noise between water and clouds. It is good
engineering practice to verify computer simulations with actual measurements. Conduct
period. Sound measurements and analysis in the EAs used the A Weighting. This
approximates the response of the human ear and according to the cited studies in the
EAs is linked to hearing loss and annoyance. But Growler engine noise has a signature
low frequency component that is ignored by A Weighting. There is substantial evidence
that low frequency sounds have deleterious health impacts beyond annoyance as
addressed in other comments. Growler sound measurement with C Weighting, which
includes most of the low frequency spectrum, is expected to be 10 to 20 dB higher than A
Weighting. We believe that C Weighting would also indicate that the Growler events are
louder than the Prowler. A fundamental assumption in the EAs, that the Growler is
quieter, is incorrect. Include C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS.
Reference: Low Frequency Noise Study; Hodgdon, Atchley, Bernhard; April 2007
http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj1/lfnreport-2007-001.pdf Studies of
airport noise have long used the Day-Night Average (Ldn) metric for assessing impacts.
This may be appropriate for airports with typical operations 16 hours a day, 7 days a
week. But the Growler noise experience is intermittent. We have days without activity. It
occurs in a region with very low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside
measurement). This is lower than the quiet suburban neighborhood background noise
level cited in the Wyle report for the 2012 EA. The startle factor is a component of the
adverse health impacts that would be better represented by a short duration noise
measurement. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements
including Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (Lmax) in addition to Ldn.
Document the projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in
5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County. Reference:
Mestre, V., et. al,: Technical Support For Day/Night Average Sound Level (Dnl)
Replacement Metric Research, Final Report, 14 June 2011, Section 6.1, last paragraph.
Of course I understand that noise measurements and projections in the EAs assume that
afterburners are not in use. We understand that afterburners are used at times including
takeoffs and FCLPs. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include
afterburners or the Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the Record of
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. Thank you for your
consideration. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2279

Im a Lopez Island Southenderin other words, I have front-row seats to the Growler
action. I am in no way against US defense as a whole, but I believe the Growlers now,
and as projected, are causing real damage to the lives of the citizens and environment
they are meant to protect. There must be ways to compromise. Please take these
recommendations into account. Walking or running out on Iceberg Point, or sitting in my
writing studio, I am frequently jarred by the sudden ground-shaking growls or the
sky-tearing rips of the jets. San Juan County has a low background noise of 35 45 dBA
(outside). County residents are routinely exposed 90 114 dBA (outside) blasts of noise
from Growler over flights and operations at Ault Field resulting in startle reactions. This
noise is perceived subconsciously by the human body as a danger signal. The body
reacts with fight or flight response with resultant nervous, hormonal and vascular
changes. The jet noise experienced is not unlike the noise of an earthquake, a strong
wind or a chimney fire. Research shows that humans do not become accustomed to
repeated noise at this level. I know I wont ever. References: Kryter K: Physiological,
Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise (pub 1115), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Washington, pp. 535- 545, 1984. Hall, FL., Birnie, SE, Taylor, SM,
Palmer, JE: Direct Comparison of Community Response to Road Traffic Noise and To
Aircraft Noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70:1690-1698, 1981. The EIS should address the
health effects of Startle Reactions. Conduct medical surveys on the impacted
populations including San Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler
(b)(6)
activity. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
2280

As a Lopez Island Southender, I have front-row seats to the Growler action. I am in no
way against US defense as a whole, but I believe the Growlers now, and as projected,
are causing real damage to the lives of the citizens and environment they are meant to
protect. Below is just one more example of this damage. There must be ways to
compromise. Please take these recommendations into account. We San Juan County
residents experience Growler jet noise at all times of the day and nightALL times. The
noise ranges from 65 110 dBA and 75 124 dBC (inside) and is the result of over
flights, engine testing and training operations. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not
publish a schedule of training operations for Ault Field. Of course I understand the
security reasons for this, but the consequence to us is never knowing if a blast of noise is
going to be a single 30 second event or the beginning of 3 hours of noise from training.
This severely impacts quality of life, use of property and has health consequences.
Surveys show that loss of control over ones life is one of the most disturbing effects of
low level military over flights and/or sonic booms on rural Americans. Reference:
Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M: Psychophysiological Reaction to Noise as Modified by
Personal Control over Noise Intensity. Biol Psychol, 6:51-59, 1978. Singer JE, Acri JB,
Schaeffer MH: Cognitive Changes from Noise Exposure. In Bergland B, Lindvall T (eds):
Noise as a Public Health Problem. New Advances in Noise Research (volume I of
proceedings of the 5th international congress on noise as a public health problem, held in
Stockholm, Aug. 21-25, 1988), Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, pp
401-410, 1990. Bargen R: Airspace Blues, Airspace, Gabbs, Nev, p 424, 1989. The EIS
should address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include notifying citizens in
advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing
Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). Thank you for your
(b)(6)
consideration. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
2281

My own children are grown, but here on Lopez Island I have a 7 year-old little sister and
so am very tuned in to the way the Growlers affect children. I am in no way against US
defense as a whole, but I believe the Growlers now, and as projected, are causing real
damage to the lives of the citizens and environment they are meant to protect. Below is
just one more example of this damage. There must be ways to compromise. Please take
these recommendations into account. On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely fly over our
school in the middle of the island and over Lopez Village where our Preschool and
Childrens Center is located. Research shows that children can be very distressed over
military jet over flights. Plain old observation here has shown us children cowering, crying
and shaking when the jets go over. Who knows what their doctors are seeing! Perhaps:
palpitations, shaking, dizziness, bed wetting, sleep disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and
elevation of blood pressure. References: Goldman B: Sheshatshit, Labrador A Town
without Hope. Can Med Assoc J, 141:602-605,1989.1162 (b)(6) Page 13 of 23. Bartels K:
Medizinische/psychosomatische Auswirkung von lieffluglarm. In Kinder und Tiefflug.
Dokumentation des Expertenforums zu den Auswirkungen des Tieffluglarms auf Kinder,
Bonn, June 12, pp 18-22, 1989. Preuss S: Militarischer Jiefflug Und Seine Psychischen
Auswirkun gen Auf Kinder. In Kinder und Tiefflug. Dokumentation des Expertenfonims zu
den Auswirkungen des Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 3-8, 1989. The EIS
should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children. Parents, teachers and
children should be questioned about behavioral responses to Growler noise. Mitigation
should include shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village.
(b)(6)
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
2282

I have been a full-time Lopez Island for over 4 years. Most of what drew my husband and
me here was the wonderful quiet, after 20 years in Tacoma. The Growlers have
destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise between 8pm and 12 midnight. In the
summer the noise can continue until 1am. Research shows that the indoor threshold for
falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Our noise journals show that indoor sound levels from
FCLPs at Ault field range from 57 80 dBA. If the low frequency noise is measured the
sound levels range from 77 100 dBC. Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and ear protection
does not help. Its unthinkable that the Navy considers San Juan County and Lopez
Island a no significant impact noise area! Averaging noise over a year is useless when
youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not average sound. I am still young and vigorous,
but I fear that living with the sleep disruptions from the Growlers is affecting the health of
all my older neighbors. References: LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking Performance
Decrements Following Minimal Sleep Description: The Effects of Habituation during
Sleep, Physiological Psychology, 3:147-174, 1975. Kryter, Ran D., Analysis of Laboratory
and Field Data on Awakening from Noise, 1988. Lukas, J., Measures of Noise Level:
Their Relative Accuracy In Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise
During Sleep. EPA-600/1-77-0 10, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Feb. 1977. Griefahn,
Barbara. Research on Nose-Disturbed Sleep since 1973. In Proceedings of the Third
International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. ASHA Report No. 10, April
1980. Gniefahn, B Muzet, A: Noise Induced Sleep Disturbances and Their Effects on
Health. Institut Feur Arbeits und Sozialmedizin, Universitaet Mainz, West Germany and
Centre dEtudes Bioclimatiques due CNRS, France. The EIS should address sleep
disturbance. A survey of the residents in the study area including San Juan County
should document the extent of this problem. An Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA
practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied.
Sincerely. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2283
We're knocking on the door of alternative three. ALTERNATIVE THREE! MORE
EA-18GS AT OLF = JOY TO MY WORLD. GO NAVY, BEAT COER!
(b)(6)
2284

I have lived on Lopez Island since 1979. I have worked as an Executive Director of a
NGO in the islands for over 20 years. Last week we had 11 hours of EA-18 Growler flight
noise on Monday, December 15th, 12 hours on Tuesday, 11 hours on Wednesday and 6
on Thursday. The decibels ranged from 75 decibels (including low frequency) - 97.5 with
multiple peaks of 112, 119 and123.7. The week before was similar. The Navy claims
there is no environmental impact of the EA-18 Growler flights on the San Juans and that
the sound testing averages out to insignificance. Our experience on Lopez is not
insignificant. Please find the will to bring the noise levels down to a humane level.
Secondly, the low frequency causes vibrations that rattle our windows, cause things to
gradually fall off shelves, and there is scientific evidence that these low frequency sounds
cause unhealthy side effects to our bodies. How will you ensure that we are not victims of
these high decibel levels and the impacts of low frequency sounds? Therefore I request
the following: A. Sound measurements and analysis in the EAs used the A Weighting
system. This system reflects human ear response and according to the cited studies is
related to annoyance. Growler engine noise has a signature low frequency component
that is ignored by A Weighting. There is substantial evidence that low frequency sounds
have deleterious health impacts beyond annoyance. Growler sound measurement with C
Weighting, which includes most of the low frequency spectrum, is expected to be at least
30 dB higher than A Weighting. We expect that C Weighting would also indicate that the
Growler is louder than the Prowler. A fundamental assumption in the EAs, that the
Growler is quieter, is incorrect. Please include C Weighted sound measurements and
analysis in the EIS. B. For decades studies of airport noise have used the Day-Night
Average (Ldn) metric for assessing impacts. This may be appropriate for airports with
typical operations 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. The noise experienced during Growler
training flights is intermittent and occurs in a region with very low background noise. The
startle factor is a component of the adverse health impacts that would be better
represented by a short duration noise measurement. I request that the EIS fully evaluate
supplemental noise measurements including Sound Exposure Level (LCE) and Peak
Sound Level (LCPeak) in addition to Ldn. Reference: Technical Support For Day/Night
Average Sound Level (Dnl) Replacement Metric Research.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/science_integrat
ed_modeling/noise_impacts/media/6-14-2011_FinalReport_MetricsMestre_etal_061411_
part1.pdf C. I understand that noise measurements and projections in the EAs assume
that afterburners are not in use. I believe that afterburners are used at times during flights
over SJC. I request that sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include
afterburners or the Navy shall commit in the mitigation section to not use afterburners in
training flights over North Puget Sound. D. Health effects related to Startle Reaction--San
Juan County residents are routinely exposed 118 124 dBC blasts of noise. This noise is
perceived subconsciously by the human body as a danger signal. The body reacts with
fight or flight response with resultant nervous, hormonal and vascular changes. The jet
noise experienced is not unlike the noise of an earthquake, a high wind level or a
chimney fire. Research shows that humans do not become accustomed to repeated
noise at this level. [References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects
of Noise (pub 1115), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, pp.
535- 545, 1984. Hall, FL., Birnie, SE, Taylor, SM, Palmer, JE: Direct Comparison of
70:1690-1698, 1981.] The EIS needs to address the health effects of Startle Reactions.
I request that medical surveys be conducted on the affected populations in San Juan
County. Mitigation must be put in place for all engine testing, takeoffs and Field Carrier
Landing Practices. E. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands
are places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic growth which recognizes the
rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine and isolated nature of the islands." The quiet
and pristine nature of the islands with its marine protected areas, National Monuments
and National Historical Parks attracts organic agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists,
hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. Some visitors who have
experienced the jet noise have stated that they will not return. Continuation of the current
level of jet noise, let alone increasing the number of jets, will discourage visitors and
reduce property values. I request that the EIS address economic impacts throughout San
Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. F. Finally, the EA-18 Growler is
out-of-scale technology for our region. How will you protect us from this out-of-scale
technology?
2284
(b)(6)
2285
Re: the negative impact of touch and go landings at OLF Coupeville. Again,we are asking
that you do everything possible to stop the inappropriate EA-18G landings. We realize
that the Navy is in the complicated process of preparing a long overdue environmental
impact statement regarding the effects of that activity on people, animals and the physical
environment. While some issues being considered are appropriate in technical terms,
immediate and blatantly obvious issues can easily get sidetracked. First, although I think
nobody doubts the importance of excellent training opportunities for pilots, it is completely
inappropriate that such low altitude, extremely loud training landings be carried out in well
populated, national park -deserve areas. Second, because there is a problem recognized
both by the community and the military, and one that is being studied, this activity should
immediately be stopped at least until an approved EIS is completed. Again,this necessary
training should be carried out in an appropriately unpopulated area already designated
and owned by the military, e.g. the Moses Lake -Hanford area. There is precedent for
such a sensible move, see the military training move away from Colorado Springs to SE
Colorado. As American, voting citizens, we ask to be respected and not victimized. Thank
you.(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2286
Mechanicsville, VA 23116
Concerning your Warfare Testing & Training and Warfare Experiments in the Pacific
Ocean (and in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho & Alaska), I wish to
add the following comments: A. I feel the you should re-release yout NWTT Draft
EIS/OEIS with the changes in each section highlighted for easy public comment and also
to view the specifics of each change to the original NWTT Draft EIS/OEIS for public
comment.WHEN WILL YOU RELEASE THIS DOCUMENT AND WILL YOU NOTIFY
THE PUBLIC WHEN RELEASED? B. When will you re-release your NWTT Draft
EIS/OEIS highlighting the changes in text or location of changes noted in your
supplement? C. THEREFORE I AM FORMERLY RESQUESTING YOU re-release your
original NWTT Draft EIS/OEIS highlighting the changes referred to in the U.S. Navy
Supplemental to the NWTT Draft EIS/OEIS prior to the close of the public comment
period for your supplemental. WILL YOU DO THIS AND IF SO, WHEN?
(b)(6)
2287

I have lived full-time on Lopez Islands south end for four years, and part-time for 12
years before that. The jets from NASWI have not bothered me much until this last year.
Now I experience them all over the Island. Walking in my back yard, our new National
Monument lands at Iceberg Point, they are the main sound I hear, drowning out the
waves and the birds. In the village, I often feel and hear their deafening vibrations. Even
at our ferry landing at the north end their noise is not uncommon. There are no more
quiet skies here. I do not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that
would base Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. .Section 1500.14 of the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations requires that Agencies shall (a) Rigorously explore
an already significantly affected area is unjustified. I know that there are other, less
populated possibilities where Growler training and basing can happenmaybe
somewhere like my previous home of Tacoma, where the ambient noise is such that
additional noise would scarcely matter. The sound of freedom fits right into
Tacomanot the San Juans1 The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that
bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2288

Ive been a part-time Lopezian since 1998, and a full-timer since 2010, but 2014 has
been by far the noisiest year ever, and I can no longer just sigh and quietly live with the
sound of freedom. Given the increase in the frequency of noise intrusions into the San
Juan skies, I must ask the Navy to implement immediate noise mitigations to reduce the
noise impacts of Growler training flights on citizens throughout the region including San
included in the proposed action or alternatives. I believe that the 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments incorrectly determined that there was no adverse noise
impact from the introduction of the Growlers. Therefore it was inappropriate not to
evaluate noise mitigation. At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully
considered. All selected mitigation measures should be included in the Record of
Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion. a) Growler training flight paths from
NAS Whibey Island (map on page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be modified to
minimize routes over populated areas, including the south end of Lopez Island, to the
greatest extent possible. b) Growler training flights over populated areas including San
Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c) Afterburners should not be used on
Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. d) A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush
House should be used for noise suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups
and testing. e) Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the General
Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. f) Notify citizens in advance of all Growler
training operations at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and
(b)(6)
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely,
(b)(6)
2289

My family first bought property here in 1998, then moved here full-time in 2010entirely
because of the beauty and the quiet. The Growlers are changing the quality of life in San
Juan County. We would never have bought property here if we had experienced the
intrusive noise from NASWI. Further, we feel that this noise is potentially turning away
tourists, our #1 source of island income. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan
states, "...the islands are places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic growth
which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine and isolated nature of
the islands." The quiet and pristine nature of the islands with its marine protected areas,
National Monuments and National Historical Parks attracts organic agriculture, lovers of
nature, cyclists, hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. We have talked
to visitors who have experienced the jet noise and have stated that they will never return.
Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone increasing the number of jets, will
discourage visitors and reduce property values. The EIS should address economic
impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties.
Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2290

Along with many of my friends, I have been following the EIS process for the past year. It
appears that both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were deficient and
incomplete. The Growlers were moved to NASWI without a full EIS and without sufficient
study of noise impacts, health consequences, plans for mitigation of noise from the
Growlers, and economic impacts to the region. The low frequency noise which is the
considered a no significant impact area. Clearly this is not the case. This EIS should
conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the Records
(b)(6)
of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2291

One, to my knowledge, I have never contacted you and complained about jet noise. Two,
a "hush house" to muffle engine testing is a very good idea and should be implemented.
And, three, you can not have a trained unit without training. The military are the nation's
defense. Training and more training are what makes them the best at what they do. I
strongly believe training funds should NOT be cut. Diminishing our Armed Forces to
placate small groups of organized complainers would be negligent and indefensible for
someone holding a public office.
(b)(6)
2294
clinton, WA 98236
I believe our pilots need the best training available.the sound of freedom seems a small
price to pay.the navy was here long before its opponents arrived.i fully support the navy
and its pilots.
(b)(6)
2295
clinton, WA 98236
and its pilots.
(b)(6)
2296
clinton, WA 98236
and its pilots.
(b)(6)
2297

Stay here. Stay safe.
(b)(6)
2298

December 24, 2014 Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic 6506 Hampton
Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS We appreciate the opportunity to
provide comments on the Navys scoping process for the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS)
Whidbey Island. Our comments are on behalf of the more than 900 Sierra Club members
on the North Olympic Peninsula directly affected by the extremely loud noise generated
by the Navys training exercises that will be made worse by the proposed additional
Growler aircraft. Whidbey Island, where these planes are located, is a vibrant, beautiful,
and historic region that has been adversely affected by the extreme aircraft noise from
the Navys training flights. Ebeys Landing National Historic Reserve, an over 17,000-acre
national park of environmental, cultural, and historical significance has been particularly
affected. The Reserve and adjoining wetlands are also an important wildlife and
migratory bird habitat that is in the vicinity of an antiquated World War II landing strip, the
OLF, that is used by the Navy for practice touch and go exercises. While section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Navy to consider the effects of its
operations on historic properties, potential adverse impacts on wildlife and migratory
birds should also be considered in the EIS. In addition to adversely affecting historic
structures and wildlife, the Navys own audit found that its jet aircraft emit noise well in
excess of the normal human pain threshold. Training flights have occurred at all hours of
the day and night and often continue for extended periods of time. Nearby residents
experience high levels of jet noise even within their shuttered houses and visitors are
unable to avail themselves of state and federal recreational lands during these times. We
urge the Navy to use the Sound Exposure Level metric and not the Day-Night Average
Sound Level metric in assessing the impact of noise on both humans and wildlife. The
nature of the Navys training exercises at OLF are, by their nature, episodic and it is
inappropriate to average the noise impacts over a 24-hour period. Real-time high noise
events experienced with each operation should be examined rather than averages which
include periods when the jets do not fly. Recent noise tests conducted by affected
residents found that maximum sound levels from Growlers using the OLF were well
above the levels requiring hearing protection and are high enough to potentially result in
permanent hearing loss. The EIS should include real measuring and not computer
modeling averaged over a 24-hour period. Tourists will avoid visiting and businesses and
residents will not relocate to an area that is constantly inundated with jet aircraft noise.
The Navy must evaluate in the EIS the impact of jet noise on the local economies of
Jefferson, Clallam, Island, and Skagit Counties. These counties, predominately rural and
residential in nature, are highly dependent on recreational tourism and its associated
services. In fact, fully 24% of Jefferson Countys per capita income has been attributed to
the proximity of protected, natural areas like the nearby Ebeys Landing and the
numerous State parks on both sides of Admiralty Strait. The EIS must also examine how
the additional Growlers and more frequent use of the OLF will adversely affect the local
real estate market. By the Navys own admission in its scoping materials: Landing on an
aircraft carrier is one of the most dangerous tasks a pilot can perform. However, these
training exercises, particularly those at the OLF, occur within a populated area and
present unacceptable accident hazard to residents, school children, and visitors. The
OLF is an antiquated World War II runway that lacks the proper clearances for safe take
offs and landings and it should be closed. The EIS must look at training location
alternatives to the continued use of the OLF. In 2013, the OLF wcas not used for nearly
six months, during which time flight training had been safely continued elsewhere,
proving that the Coupeville OLF is not an essential facility. The EIS must also address
the numerous peer-reviewed studies documenting the various health effects of aircraft
noise, including permanent hearing damage, blood pressure and cardiac problems;
childrens greater susceptibility to jet noise; and harm to livestock and wildlife. Studies
include those by: The World Health Organization; The U.S. Department of
Transportation; and The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EIS should also
assess the health effects of exposure to toxic jet aircraft pollution and the environmental
consequences of dumping excess fuel over our waters and land. The Sierra Clubs North
Olympic Group joins with local citizens in requesting the Navy address these issues in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for EA-18G Growler Airfield
(b)(6)
operations at the Naval Air Station on Whidbey Island. Sincerely,
Acting
(b)(6)
2298
(b)(6)
2299
Nordland, WA 98358
I have lived on Marrowstone Island for 28 years and have never been concerned about
the noise from jet air planes.
(b)(6)
2300

I have lived on the east side of Lopez Island full time since 2012 and part time since
2004. In the last year noise and over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded
anything we have experienced in all our years on Lopez. All the reasons we have chosen
to live here are being negatively impacted by the constant noise, vibration and intrusive
over-flights of Growlers. Our conversations are interrupted, the windows and dishes
rattle. We cannot hear our television or radio. We have been awakened at night, startled
in the day, often many, many times in a day. The type of noise has changed significantly
with the shift from Prowlers to Growlers and the impact on residents has changed from
moderate to severe. The Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact
area. This could not be further from the truth! Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler
Impact Statement (EIS). The current EIS should study the following: Conduct continuous
sound measurements (on the ground not computer modeling) in the southern and
eastern portions of SJC over a one-month period Include C Weighted sound
measurements and analysis in the EIS. The EIS analysis should incorporate
supplemental noise measurements including Sound Exposure Level (LCE) and Peak
Sound Level (LCPeak) in addition to Ldn. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS
should include afterburners or the Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the
Record of Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights over North Puget
Sound.
(b)(6)
2301

I live on the east side of Lopez Island. Over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations from
Growlers and operation at Ault Field are degrading many of the reasons we chose to live
on the island. When the jets are flying the noise is often so intense that conversation
stops. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of training
operations for Ault Field. As a consequence, residents never know if a blast of noise is
advance of all Growler training operations at Ault Field including Field Carrier Landing
Practice (FCLP), Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs), takeoffs and engine run-up.
(b)(6)
2302

I live on the east side of Lopez and work from home. We experience Growler noise
usually 5 days a week often starting at 8am and continuing until 9 -10pm in the winter
and 12 1am in the summer. One of the most difficult aspects for me is the Startle effect.
We get sporadic blasts of noise throughout the day. I can feel my adrenalin kick in and
my blood pressure rises. This constant noise is definitely affecting my well-being.
References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise (pub
1115), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, pp. 535- 545, 1984.
Hall, FL., Birnie, SE, Taylor, SM, Palmer, JE: Direct Comparison of Community
Response to Road Traffic Noise and To Aircraft Noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
70:1690-1698, 1981. The EIS should address the health effects of Startle Reactions.
Medical surveys should be conducted on the affected populations including San Juan
County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity.
(b)(6)
2303

I have enjoyed living on Lopez Island for many years. I live on the water on the eastern
side of the island. One of the wonders of living here has been the quiet nights and being
able to hear the waves, the sea gulls, the wind and all the night sounds. The Growlers
have destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise between 8pm and 12 midnight. In
the summer the noise can continue until 1am. Research shows that the indoor threshold
for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. The noise journals of some islanders show that indoor
and ear protection does not help. I did not move to Lopez to wear ear protection. Its
Juan County should document the extent of this problem. An action alternative that
removes FCLP and Approach practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours
should be developed and studied.
(b)(6)
2304

The Lopez Island way of life is endangered by the Navys shift from Prowler to Growler
and proposed increase in numbers of Growlers on Whidbey Island. We The Navy should
be implementing immediate noise mitigations to reduce the noise impacts of Growler
training flights on citizens throughout the region including San Juan County. In preparing
incorrectly determined that there was no adverse noise impact from the introduction of
the Growlers. Therefore it was inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. At a
timelines for completion. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whidbey Island should
Carrier Approaches (CCAs), takeoffs and engine run-up.
(b)(6)
2305

The Lopez Island way of life is endangered by the Navys shift from Prowler to Growler
and proposed increase in numbers of Growlers on Whidbey Island. We The Navy should
timelines for completion. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whidbey Island should
Carrier Approaches (CCAs), takeoffs and engine run-up.
(b)(6)
2306
Bothell, WA 98012
I have property on SE Guemes island. The jet noise is unbearable now. Will the noise get
worse? Does the Navy want to buy my property?
(b)(6)
2307
orcas, WA 98280
We find the growler flights loud and disturbing from inside our residence which is located
on the southern portion of Orcas Island. Experiencing the flights while out of doors at our
home in distressing. We fear the tourists on whom this county's economic well-being
depends will be similarly affected. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2308
(b)(6)
Hi, my name is
and I am (b)(6)
I was just
looking at your website and see that your website has the potential to become very
popular. I just want to tell you, In case you didn't already know... There is a website
network which already has more than 16 million users, and the majority of the users are
interested in niches like yours. By getting your website on this network you have a
chance to get your site more popular than you can imagine. It is free to sign up and you
can read more about it here: http://claimyourexcellence.info/1gl - Now, let me ask you...
Do you need your site to be successful to maintain your business? Do you need targeted
traffic who are interested in the services and products you offer? Are looking for
exposure, to increase sales, and to quickly develop awareness for your website? If your
answer is YES, you can achieve these things only if you get your site on the network I am
describing. This traffic network advertises you to thousands, while also giving you a
chance to test the service before paying anything. All the popular blogs are using this
service to boost their readership and ad revenue! Why arent you? And what is better than
traffic? Its recurring traffic! That's how running a successful site works... Here's to your
success! Read more here: http://ft1.info/2zty
(b)(6)
2309
Please do not bring more growler airplanes to the North Whidbey air fields. The noise is
accessive and makes it very hard to enjoy the natural beauty of North West Washington
when ones ears are being hurt. As a child walking around La Conner I was shocked by
the sound of planes ripping through the sky. Now as an adult I am still shocked by the
sound. Truthfully it makes me want to leave and go home. This is really too bad, because
some of my favorite places to enjoy outdoors are where the growler aiplanes fly. Nothing
is perfect, so I can understand a percieved need for airforce action. However, the
increaced rate of practice flights and airplanes is inappropriate. Please decrease the rate
of practice "touch and go" flights and allow the ancestors of the Salish Sea and the
children who wish to enjoy the North West's great outdoors without inducing ear damage
and stress caused by severly load airplane noise.
(b)(6)
2310
nordland, WA 98358
I live in Jefferson County and am subjected to the noise of Growler overflights. The EIS
needs to have accurate assessments of impact of intermittent, high decibel noise on
people and wildlife. The noise must not be averaged in order to make loud noises less
loud!! The alternative needs to include NOT having Growlers train on Whidbey Island.
This EIS needs to address cumulative impacts and cannot simply build from the previous
assessments.
(b)(6)
2311
You need targeted visitors for your Environmental Impact Statement for the EA-18G
Growler Airfield Operations website so why not try some for free? There is a VERY
POWERFUL and POPULAR company out there who now lets you try their traffic service
for 7 days free of charge. I am so glad they opened their traffic system back up to the
public! Sign up before it is too late: http://qa.juststicky.com/yourls/275f
2313
2325
2357
2357
2358
2358
2364
2364
2368
2368
2369
2369
2370
2370
2371
2371
2379
2379
2382
2382
2383
2383
2384
2384
2388
2388
2390
2390
2392
2392
2392
2392
2392
2392
2392
2392
2392
2392
2392
2392
2399
2399
2400
2400
2401
2401
2407
2407
2408
2408
2410
2411
2413
2414
2421
2424
2425
2426
2435
2436
2439
2441
2442
2443
2444
2446
2447
2448
2449
2457
2457
2457
2457
2457
2457
2462
2463
2464
2465
2476
2476
2476
2476
2478
2479
2485
2485
2486
2488
2488
2488
2489
2490
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2505
2505
2506
2507
2507
2507
2507
2507
2510
2510
2511
2513
2513
2513
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2525
TEST COMMENT NO ACTUAL COMMENT EXISTS. SYSTEM TEST ONLY.
(b)(6)
2526
Anacortes, WA 98221-3703
The noise from the EA-18G flights from the NAS Whidbey Island base is excessive
beyond anyone's point of view regardless of one's position on the situation. When I was
outside a few days ago, trying to converse with my neighbor who was 3 feet away from
me, we both had to stop talking and cover our ears as the noise level was far beyond any
reasonable level. Unbearable is the only fitting word. I do not care what time of day or just
after or before fuel allocations are made for the month or how many hours of flight time
need to be logged....it is unbearable. We used to have regulations on the noise level of
motorcycles, logging trucks, dual exhaust/mufflers on car and light trucks. Why have
these been ignored in all areas of our life? So we keep on playing 'war games' as that
appears to be an ok selling point for all the excessive amounts of 'energy' expended.
Where is the Secretary of Peace department? It is necessary if we are to continue living
on planet earth! Take the flight trips out over the Strait of Juan De Fuca and the Salish
Sea. We have had enough!
(b)(6)
2527
I am writing to say I do not want any more Growlers using the OLF outside of Coupeville.
I have lived here for over 34 years - way longer than a lot of people who comment on the
jet noise. I have lived through all the years of the previous jets flying right over our house.
Your pilots and flight planners show disrespect for those of us who live in the flight path
by continually flying exactly over the same houses over and over again. I have contacted
the Navy easily a hundred times about this over the years - asking that at the least the
planes should be spread out over the flight path instead of irritating and deafening the
same households every time they fly on the path that goes near us. My opinion is that the
Growlers are incredibly noisier, with a different pitch to the sound that nearly deafens us
on the ground when they fly over. Your continued "deaf ear" to the issues of those of us
in the flight path astounds me. I want the Growlers gone from the OLF- find a place to
have your pilots practice where they can be safe, complete their mission and not destroy
our health, environment and our neighborhoods. Please move the Growlers!!
(b)(6)
2528

My wife and I live just west of the center of Davis Bay on the south end of Lopez Island,
WA. We have been located there since 1962. To the untrained eye, we feel confident that
Whidbey N.A.S. has at least two flight patterns that pass almost directly overhead with all
the normal frustration and complaints that brings. We are most effected by the ground or
static testing of engines etc. when that procedure begins at 11p.m. This process literally
shakes and vibrates our house. This is the area of our main concern with the navy
research of the different ways to mitigate the effect of ground testing on the residents of
Lopez Island that live on the south end. It is unbearable at 82 aircraft let alone an
additional 36 more. From what we know the construction of a hush house is possibly the
best current solution. We would hope that they consider more than one.
(b)(6)
2529
pt hadlock, WA 98339
I live in Port Hadlock and work on Marrowstone Island. I shop and hike all around the
north peninsula. I volunteer with Journeys Rites of Passage who, every summer, take
groups of teens into the Olympics and near beaches to be in nature for weeks without cell
phones, etc. and to hear within themselves. There are very many groups, families,
congregations who also do similarly. "Nature deficit disorder" is a commonly used phrase
now, and a very common root of physical and emotional disorders in the population. I
want NO Navy or other military personnel or anything that creates not only noise, but any
frequencies in the peninsula's habitat. It does not belong there. If anywhere. The thing
about well-managed military is, it needs to protect people not only from outside attack,
but from its own peacetime actions and testing. Thank you.
(b)(6)
2530

My main concern about the purchase of more planes is the increase in noise. I've been
hearing the sound/vibration of military planes a lot recently, both from my house in Port
Townsend and from the nearby beach. The sound is quite loud, and I worry about how
disruptive it would be if there were even more. I'm also concerned for my grandma that
the increased military plane sound will bring up memories of her childhood during World
War II. I hope that the EIS will consider the impact of the planes on people with PTSD.
(b)(6)
2531

(b)(6)
Port Townsend, WA 98368 December 31, 2014

Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus Office of the Secretary of the Navy 2000 Navy
Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20350-2000 Re: code EV21/SS ; electromagnetic warfare
training over Olympic Peninsula Dear Mr. Mabus, I have lived in Port Townsend, WA for
22 years. Recently you are having increasing numbers of Growler jets flying over our
area. You have also started a process to have increasing numbers of Growler jets take
part in electromagnetic warfare training in our National Forest and over our Olympic
National Park. I am strongly opposed to your decision to have Growler jets training in our
area, for electromagnetic warfare training or any other reason. The deafening noise and
pollution from these jets is extremely harmful and disturbing to the people and animals of
the Olympic Peninsula, including a number of animals that are on the endangered
species list. The Navy has not completed a comprehensive Environmental Impact
Statement for this project by claiming that there will be no significant impact. There most
certainly will be a significant impact to the Navys use of electromagnetic emitters in our
Nation Forest. The electronic emitters can damage and kill animals and people who
come too close. The large numbers of Growler jets that will be flying close to these
emitters will clearly have a significant impact on the people and animals that live on the
Olympic Peninsula. I am sure that you are aware that the Navy is in violation of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Navy violated NEPA procedure
by their failure to adequately notify the public about this project. Why are you permitting
the Navy to proceed with this project, while you are in violation of NEPA? The Growler
jets will be flying repeatedly over The Olympic National Park. The Navy violated NEPA by
not notifying or consulting with Olympic National Park as they drafted their Environmental
Assessment (EA). Why was the Olympic National Park not notified or consulted by the
Navy during the drafting of their EA? Why are you permitting the Navy to hold these
training exercises while they are in violation of NEPA regarding their lack of notification
and consultation with officials of The Olympic National Park? The Navy violated NEPA
procedure by not addressing future and cumulative impacts of this project. Federal Law
requires that these be fully disclosed and analyzed. The Navy states that their project
aims to "accommodate growth in future training requirements", yet they do not specifically
disclose what that growth will include, nor analyze its impacts. All future phases of the
Electronic Warfare Training Project must be fully disclosed and evaluated in full. This is
Federal law. Why are you not considering the future and cumulative impacts of this
project? Exactly how much radiation will be projected from each of the Growler jets in one
day's training as they practice their warfare tactics? Why is the Navy not providing full
transparency and full disclosure as Federal law mandates? The Navy violated NEPA
procedure by not using the most recent and "best available science" in your conclusion
that there will be "No Significant Impact" from your project. Your supporting science
documents are weak and sorely outdated. Thousands of recent, peer-reviewed studies
indicate there are very real harmful effects to both humans and to wildlife, from
man-made electromagnetic fields. The Navy sited only one very dated and narrow
experiment on DNA fragmentation to justify their claim that electromagnetic radiation is
harmless. (See the Navy's EA 3.1.1.2). You have chosen to ignore thousands of rigorous
scientific studies. The Navy's EA is sorely deficient in this regard, and as such, it violates
Federal law. Why is the Navy not using the most recent and best available science?
Because the project will include active, focused use of electromagnetic weaponry,
pointed down towards the earth, the damage to living animals and people will be
significant. Why is the Navy not addressing this? Why are you allowing the Navy to
Navy's EA are so blatant? The Navy violated NEPA procedure by failing to address the
impacts this electromagnetic radiation will have on bees, butterflies, birds and bats and
other small animals in our National Forest. Because the current worldwide Bee Colony
Collapse is such a threat to our food security, President Obama has called for all
government agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Dept. of Agriculture,
to make the protection of pollinators a critical priority. Scientists have found that
man-made Electromagnetic Radiation radically disrupts bees' ability to navigate and find
their way back to their hives. Also the Navy's assessment does not address the harm this
radiation causes to amphibians. These omissions in the Navy's EA renders the document
sorely deficient. As such, it is a violation of NEPA. Why are you not requiring the Navy to
address the impacts of this project on bees, birds, bats, butterflies, and other insects as
well as amphibians? Numerous scientific studies document very real harm to these
creatures from man-made electromagnetic fields. Why is this being overlooked? Why are
you not requiring the Navy to have comprehensive studies of the affect of
electromagnetic radiation on the flora and fauna in the forests that you are planning to
have electromagnetic training exercises? The Navy violated NEPA procedure by not
addressing at all the following areas where impacts will be experienced. Federal Law
requires that the Navy fully analyze and disclose all potential impacts, direct, indirect and
cumulative, that their project could have. The Navy is not permitted to dismiss the
following issues. Noise from the Growler jets, pollution from these jets, land use (both
traditional and cultural), economic and social impacts. Why have you allowed the Navy to
ignore noise from the Growler jets, pollution from these jets, land use (both traditional and
cultural), economic and social impacts? By ignoring these impacts you are clearly in
violation of federal regulations. The Navy has hundreds of thousands of acres of remote
lands that are used for just this kind of hazardous testing and training. Why arent they
being used instead? Every viable alternative needs to be considered. Why hasnt the
Navy use these other lands that are available? The general public has clearly stated that
they their well being and survival will be jeopardized by your decision to have the Navy to
use our U.S. Forest lands in the Olympic Peninsula for an electronic warfare training
range. Why are you giving priority to the needs and desires of the Navy over the desires
of the general public, when you clearly have other areas available for hazardous testing
and training? Sincerely, (b)(6)
Cc: Governor Jay Inslee, Senator Patty
Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell, Congressman Derek Kilmer, Senator James Hargrove,
Representative Kevin Van De Wege, Representative Steve Tharinger, Secretary of the
Interior Sally Jewell
2531
(b)(6)
2532
Anacortes, WA 98221
I have resided and worked in Anacortes since 1977, and I attended the scoping meeting
presented at Anacortes High School. Thank you for your thorough presentation of plans,
your openness, and your amiable personnel. I have always been in support of Naval Air
Operations at NAS Whidbey. I consider the sounds generated from flights over Anacortes
and the Puget Sound area to be a very small inconvenience. In fact, the objections of
those who oppose it are more annoying than the actual jet sounds. I recognize that NAS
Whidbey and its missions are vital not only to our national defense but to our local
economy as well. I am in complete support of all aspects of EA-18G Growler Airfield
Operations, and the necessities of expanded pilot and aircrew training and readiness.
Please consider me a friend of our Navy neighbors, and a defender of those who defend
us.
(b)(6)
2533

(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Port Townsend, WA 98368 December 31,
2014 Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic
6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Re: code EV21/SS ; electromagnetic
warfare training over Olympic Peninsula Dear Mr. Mabus, I have lived in Port Townsend,
WA for 22 years. Recently you are having increasing numbers of Growler jets flying over
our area. You have also started a process to have increasing numbers of Growler jets
take part in electromagnetic warfare training in our National Forest and over our Olympic
National Park. I am strongly opposed to your decision to have Growler jets training in our
area, for electromagnetic warfare training or any other reason. The deafening noise and
pollution from these jets is extremely harmful and disturbing to the people and animals of
the Olympic Peninsula, including a number of animals that are on the endangered
species list. The Navy has not completed a comprehensive Environmental Impact
Statement for this project by claiming that there will be no significant impact. There most
certainly will be a significant impact to the Navys use of electromagnetic emitters in our
Nation Forest. The electronic emitters can damage and kill animals and people who
come too close. The large numbers of Growler jets that will be flying close to these
emitters will clearly have a significant impact on the people and animals that live on the
Olympic Peninsula. I am sure that you are aware that the Navy is in violation of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Navy violated NEPA procedure
by their failure to adequately notify the public about this project. Why are you permitting
the Navy to proceed with this project, while you are in violation of NEPA? The Growler
jets will be flying repeatedly over The Olympic National Park. The Navy violated NEPA by
not notifying or consulting with Olympic National Park as they drafted their Environmental
Assessment (EA). Why was the Olympic National Park not notified or consulted by the
Navy during the drafting of their EA? Why are you permitting the Navy to hold these
training exercises while they are in violation of NEPA regarding their lack of notification
and consultation with officials of The Olympic National Park? The Navy violated NEPA
procedure by not addressing future and cumulative impacts of this project. Federal Law
requires that these be fully disclosed and analyzed. The Navy states that their project
aims to "accommodate growth in future training requirements", yet they do not specifically
disclose what that growth will include, nor analyze its impacts. All future phases of the
Electronic Warfare Training Project must be fully disclosed and evaluated in full. This is
Federal law. Why are you not considering the future and cumulative impacts of this
project? Exactly how much radiation will be projected from each of the Growler jets in one
day's training as they practice their warfare tactics? Why is the Navy not providing full
transparency and full disclosure as Federal law mandates? The Navy violated NEPA
procedure by not using the most recent and "best available science" in your conclusion
that there will be "No Significant Impact" from your project. Your supporting science
documents are weak and sorely outdated. Thousands of recent, peer-reviewed studies
indicate there are very real harmful effects to both humans and to wildlife, from
man-made electromagnetic fields. The Navy sited only one very dated and narrow
experiment on DNA fragmentation to justify their claim that electromagnetic radiation is
harmless. (See the Navy's EA 3.1.1.2). You have chosen to ignore thousands of rigorous
scientific studies. The Navy's EA is sorely deficient in this regard, and as such, it violates
Federal law. Why is the Navy not using the most recent and best available science?
Because the project will include active, focused use of electromagnetic weaponry,
pointed down towards the earth, the damage to living animals and people will be
significant. Why is the Navy not addressing this? Why are you allowing the Navy to
Navy's EA are so blatant? The Navy violated NEPA procedure by failing to address the
impacts this electromagnetic radiation will have on bees, butterflies, birds and bats and
other small animals in our National Forest. Because the current worldwide Bee Colony
Collapse is such a threat to our food security, President Obama has called for all
government agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Dept. of Agriculture,
to make the protection of pollinators a critical priority. Scientists have found that
man-made Electromagnetic Radiation radically disrupts bees' ability to navigate and find
their way back to their hives. Also the Navy's assessment does not address the harm this
radiation causes to amphibians. These omissions in the Navy's EA renders the document
sorely deficient. As such, it is a violation of NEPA. Why are you not requiring the Navy to
address the impacts of this project on bees, birds, bats, butterflies, and other insects as
well as amphibians? Numerous scientific studies document very real harm to these
creatures from man-made electromagnetic fields. Why is this being overlooked? Why are
you not requiring the Navy to have comprehensive studies of the affect of
electromagnetic radiation on the flora and fauna in the forests that you are planning to
have electromagnetic training exercises? The Navy violated NEPA procedure by not
addressing at all the following areas where impacts will be experienced. Federal Law
requires that the Navy fully analyze and disclose all potential impacts, direct, indirect and
cumulative, that their project could have. The Navy is not permitted to dismiss the
following issues. Noise from the Growler jets, pollution from these jets, land use (both
traditional and cultural), economic and social impacts. Why have you allowed the Navy to
ignore noise from the Growler jets, pollution from these jets, land use (both traditional and
cultural), economic and social impacts? By ignoring these impacts you are clearly in
violation of federal regulations. The Navy has hundreds of thousands of acres of remote
lands that are used for just this kind of hazardous testing and training. Why arent they
being used instead? Every viable alternative needs to be considered. Why hasnt the
Navy use these other lands that are available? The general public has clearly stated that
they their well being and survival will be jeopardized by your decision to have the Navy to
use our U.S. Forest lands in the Olympic Peninsula for an electronic warfare training
range. Why are you giving priority to the needs and desires of the Navy over the desires
of the general public, when you clearly have other areas available for hazardous testing
and training? Sincerely, (b)(6)
Cc: Governor Jay Inslee, Senator Patty
Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell, Congressman Derek Kilmer, Senator James Hargrove,
Representative Kevin Van De Wege, Representative Steve Tharinger, Secretary of the
Interior Sally Jewell
2533
(b)(6)
2534
No more Growlers...remove the ones a.lready here
(b)(6)
2535
OLF has been here for years. It is not hidden and should continue to be used as needed.
There should not be a limit on the number of flights per year but should be at the needs
of the Navy.
(b)(6)
2536

We've lived directly under the flight path for 20yrs. Love the jets! Keep up the great work
protecting our wonderful country!!!
(b)(6)
2537
Moab, UT 84532
The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements including Sound
projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5dB increments
throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County.
(b)(6)
2538
Moab, UT 84532
The EIS should address the health effects of Startle Reactions. Conduct medical
surveys on the impacted populations including San Juan County. Mitigation should be put
in place for all Growler activity.
(b)(6)
2539
Moab, UT 84532
The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children. Parents,
teachers and children should be questioned about behavioral responses to Growler
noise. Mitigation should include shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School
and Lopez Village.
(b)(6)
2540
Moab, UT 84532
The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the study area
including San Juan County should document the extent of this problem. An Alternative
Schedule that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800
hours should be developed and studied.
(b)(6)
2541
Moab, UT 84532
The EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include notifying
citi zens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield including Field
Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
(b)(6)
2542
Moab, UT 84532
We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just because they are higher in cost
or not as efficient. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases
Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2543
Moab, UT 84532
a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island should be modified to minimize
routes over populated areas including the south end of Lopez Island to the greatest
extent possible. b) Growler training flights over populated areas including San Juan
County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c) Afterburners should not be used on
training operations at either airfield including Field Ca Field Carrier Landing Practice
(FCLP), Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
(b)(6)
2544
Moab, UT 84532
This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off
of, the analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan,
Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties.
(b)(6)
2545
Olympia, WA 98501
Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (Lmax) in addition to WE believe the sound
issues if very important to be reviewed and results supplied to the public. Ldn. Document
the projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5dB
increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County.
(b)(6)
2546
Olympia, WA 98501
in place for all Growler activity. I do not believe this is a good thing for our community,
wild life, economy. Please consider complying with this request for further study and
information gathering.
(b)(6)
2547
Olympia, WA 98501
and Lopez Village.
(b)(6)
2548
Olympia, WA 98501
(b)(6)
2549
Olympia, WA 98501
(b)(6)
2550
Olympia, WA 98501
(b)(6)
2551
Olympia, VA 98501
Please consider the following submitted by concerned citizen: EIS address economic
impact on communities. Find alternative locations for training. Notify citizens in advance
of training operations.
(b)(6)
2552
santa fe, NM 87504

Dear Navy, my name is(b)(6)
. Electromagnetic field affect life in adverse
ways...humans and other life...this is my experience and knowledge of studies done..I am
a Wildlife biologist. Please do not do this testing...please come into your true evolution of
waging PEACE and communications and friendship with others. Please seek other
solutions to your intentions other that this electromagentic testing that affects children
and the innate vitality of Life 1. Past Analysis Insufficient For decades studies of airport
noise have used the Day-Night Average (Ldn) metric for assessing impacts, appropriate
for airports with typical operations 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. However, Growler
training flights cause intermittent noise in a region with very low background noise of 35
45 dBA (outside measurement), much lower than the quiet suburban neighborhood
background noise level cited in the Wyle report for the 2012 EA. The EIS analysis should
of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted
areas including San Juan County. 2. Health effects Startle Reaction from Growler training
The startle factor is a component of the adverse health impacts that would be better
represented by a short duration noise measurement as the body reacts with fight or flight
in place for all Growler activity. 3. Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children Research
shows that children can be very distressed over military jet over flights. Behaviors in
children may include: terror, panic, screaming, freezing in place, palpitations, shaking,
dizziness, bed wetting, sleep disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood
pressure. The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children.
Parents, teachers and children should be questioned about behavioral responses to
Growler noise. Mitigation should include shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island
School and Lopez Village. 4. Noise disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead to health
disorders and interfere with convalescence from illness. The EIS should address sleep
should document the extent of this problem. An Alternative Schedule that removes FCLP
and CCA practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and
studied. 5. Loss of Control Residents are never informed if a blast of noise is going to be
a single 30 second event or the beginning of 3 hours of noise from training. This severely
impacts quality of life, use of property and has health consequences. Surveys show that
loss of control over ones life is one of the most disturbing effects of low level military over
flights and/or sonic booms on rural Americans. The EIS should address the issue of Loss
of Control. Mitigation should include notifying citi zens in advance of all Growler training
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). 6. No Alternative Sites Considered. There are no
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives . We

believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just because they are higher in cost or
not as efficient. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases
Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. 7. Mitigation At a minimum the
following mitigation measures must be fully considered. All selected mitigation measures
should be included in the Record of Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion.
(FCLP), Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). 8. Deficiencies in the 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments (EAs) are
deficient in the following areas as noted in numerous comments: Analysis Human
health consequences Alternatives Mitigation Economic consequences This EIS
should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the
analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments.
The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit,
Jefferson and Island Counties.
2552
(b)(6)
2553
Olympia, WA 98506
I am convinced that any operations connected to Growler Airfield Operations will harm
and possibly destroy the delicate balance of natural life on the Olympic Penninsula. I
oppose any such operations and point you to the many experts on forestry and wildlife
that support my position.
(b)(6)
2554

I live in the middle of the beautiful Skagit Valley. In fact, right beneath what appears to be
the downwind-to-base turn for landing west at NAS Whidbey. F-18s, P-3s, and more
practicing and practicing....sometimes late at night. We want to be very clear. My family
has no environmental concerns as these men and women practice and train to protect
our freedoms. No environmental concerns what so ever. We support their efforts and our
proud to have them train above our fields. The wildlife has not disappeared from our
acreage. Our crops continues to grow. And the noise, infrequently as it occurs, is a
pleasant reminder of our freedoms and the sacrifices our service men and women make.
Life is good and we are thankful for those above us that train day or night. Keep it up. A
vast majority of our community supports you.
(b)(6)
2555

I live directly under the flight path for NAS Whidbey east west runway. At times the
aircraft altitude is less then 500 ft. It is loud but not unbearable. Most of those that
complain do not live under a flight path. Their only goal in life is to find something to
complain about. Keep the planes flying. Go U.S. Navy!
(b)(6)
2556
Nordland , WA 98358
I am deeply saddened and frustrated that the navy is going to use our pristine Olympic
Peninsula for its warfare games. You may think that the impact will be minimal but I
imagine that it will be very disturbing for not only the thousands of visitors to our parks
and the wildlife that lives there. Now I understand that this will also cause more bridge
openings on the hood canal, which will impact thousands more. I heard that one of the
reasons they will be doing it here rather than in Idaho and other areas where this is
already going on is so that military doing this will not have to travel so far. But when they
joined the military that is one of the things to be expected. Please do not cause damage
to our Olympic Peninsula. Please take your growlers elsewhere.
(b)(6)
2557

To Whom It May Concern: I am a long time resident of San Juan Island. I live here
because of the beautiful environment and the closeness of nature. The quiet of the
islands, the absence of urban noise, is a vital part of living here. During the last many
months, the dreadful deep roar of Whidbey Island jets has repeatedly and very often
destroyed the acoustic environment. Many times the jets fly for hours and hours at a
stretch, obliterating all other sounds of the environment and overwhelming even sounds
indoors with windows closed. Many nights the jets fly long into the night. Noise of this sort
is is a pernicious form of pollution, causing a perpetual stress response, affecting
everyone at their deepest level of being. A great deal of recent scientific research
cascade stress response within us which contributes negatively to all manner of health
conditions, and interrupts that which is required for health, healing, and well-being.
Recent and ongoing scientific studies also indicate clearly the importance of the acoustic
environment for other species. Studies about noise in the environment are ongoing and
current. Scientific findings support and confirm individuals' experience of the very harmful
effects of noise on health and well being. It is recognized globally that noise of this sort is
one of the terrible impacts of war. It is wrong to allow noise of this sort to destroy the
quality of life for all residents in the northern Puget Sound and Salish Sea. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2558
Please test and release information on the added noise levels due to the use of
afterburners. Please use real testing, not computer models.
(b)(6)
2559

My name is (b)(6)
and I live in Port Townsend, WA. I have been deeply
disturbed in my daily activities by the noise impacts of Growler jet flights in recent months
and would like the Navy to address some specific issues, outlined below in its
Environmental Impact review. 1) Sound measurements and analysis in the EAs used the
A Weighting. This approximates the response of the human ear and according to the
cited studies in the EAs is linked to hearing loss and annoyance. Growler engine noise
has a signature low frequency component that is ignored by A Weighting. There is
annoyance as addressed in other comments. Growler sound measurement with C
Weighting, which includes most of the low frequency spectrum, is expected to be 10 to 20
dB higher than A Weighting. I believe that C Weighting would also indicate that the
Growler events are louder than the Prowler. A fundamental assumption in the EAs, that
the Growler is quieter, is incorrect. Include C Weighted sound measurements and
analysis in the EIS. Reference: Low Frequency Noise Study; Hodgdon, Atchley,
Bernhard; April 2007
http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj1/lfnreport-2007-001.pdf 2) For decades
days a week. The noise experienced during Growler training flights is intermittent. We
have days without activity. It occurs in a region with very low background noise of 35 45
dBA (outside measurement). This is lower than the quiet suburban neighborhood
and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted areas, including Port Townsend.
paragraph. 3) I understand that noise measurements and projections in the EAs assume
that afterburners are not in use. I understand that afterburners are used at times including
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights.
(b)(6)
2560

I am a resident of Port Townsend, WA, concerned about the noise impacts of increasing
Growler jet use over northern Puget Sound. I would like the Navy to address specific
issues detailed below in the EIS. Residents of Port Townsend experience Growler jet
noise at different times of the day and night, as result of over flights, engine testing and
training operations. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of
training operations for Ault Field. As a consequence, residents never know if a blast of
noise is going to be a single 30 second event or the beginning of 3 hours of noise from
training. This severely impacts quality of life, use of property and has health
citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield including Field
(b)(6)
2561

I live in Port Townsend, where I have had my sleep seriously disrupted by increasing
Growler jet activity over the past months. I would like the Navy to address the specific
issues indicated below in their EIS about proposed further increases in Growler activity.
Port Townsend residents regularly experience Growler jet noise between the hours of 8
pm and 12 midnight. During the summer the noise often continues to 1 am. The indoor
threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field
are very loud. Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Using the
Day-Night Average (Ldn) noise measure does not take into account that our bodies do
not average sleep loss. Noise annoyance during the night increases noise annoyance for
the following 24 hours. Noise disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead to health
disorders and interfere with convalescence from illness. Low frequency sound, such as
the Growler emits, is significantly disturbing even at low sound pressure levels.
Bioclimatiques due CNRS, France. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey
of the residents in the study area should document the extent of this problem. An
Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800
(b)(6)
2562

I am a resident of Port Townsend, and have many concerns about the environmental
impacts of increasing Growler jet activity in this region. In particular, I want the Navy to
consider alternative sites. The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States: The
alternatives include variations of the following factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to be
purchased 2. Number of aircraft assigned per squadron 3. Number of land-based
all reasonable alternatives . I believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just
because they are higher in cost or not as efficient. The EIS should fully evaluate one or
more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2563

I live in Port Townsend, where I have been seriously disturbed by increased Growler
activity over the past months. I would like the Navy to include mitigation issues in its EIS.
Specifically, Iwant the Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce the noise
impacts of Growler training flights on citizens including residents of Port Townsend. In
proposed action or alternatives. I believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments incorrectly determined that there was no adverse noise impact. Therefore it
was inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. At a minimum the following mitigation
measures must be fully considered. All selected mitigation measures should be included
in the Record of Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion. a) Growler training
flight paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be
modified to minimize routes over populated areas including Port Townend to the greatest
extent possible. b) Growler training flights over populated areas including Port Townsend
Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
(b)(6)
2564

Hello Navy, Reference: draft EIS prepared on the Navys addition of 36 EA-18G Growler
jets to its fleet of 82 on Whidbey Island, WA. We feel we are under attack. The Navy has
segregated the Planning for the Navys electronic warfare testing and training on the
Olympic Peninsula into ground, air, and sea-based activities. Each activity has its
separate procedures and separate documents. This has resulted in four separate public
comment periods in the last five months of 2014. (And, in Port Townsend, we have a
Navy ammunition depot across the bay that could explode and send shrapnel our
direction). This is confusing and frustrating. Why cant the Navy simplify? Why cant the
Navy coordinate its efforts to train their service people? Why cant they do simulations
rather than hurting people who live in a quiet location of the country? One of the many
Navy problems in this beautiful pristine area of Northwest Washington State is Growler
noise that will increase when more Growlers are added on Whidbey Island. My husband
and I have enjoyed living in Port Townsend for over 10 years. One of the wonders of
living here has been the quiet nights with few lights to really take in nature -- the wind, the
stars, and all the night sounds. The Growlers have destroyed this. We regularly
experience jet noise between 8pm and 12 midnight. In the summer the noise can
continue until 1am when our cool breezes cannot be enjoyed because the windows need
to be shut to keep out some of the Growler noise. Research shows that the indoor
threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Noise journals show that indoor sound levels
from FCLPs at Ault field range from 57 80 dBA. If the low frequency noise is measured
the sound levels range from 77 100 dBC. Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and ear
protection does not help. Its unthinkable that the Navy considers the Olympic Peninsula
a no significant impact noise area! Averaging noise over a year is useless when youre
trying to sleep. Our bodies do not average sound. I feel that living with the sleep
disruptions from the Growlers is affecting my health and the health of other humans and
living creatures. The EIS should address sleep disturbance including a survey of the
residents in the study area documenting the extent of this problem. The introduction of
the Growler has negatively impacting the area around Whidbey Island and the whole
region. Alternatives should not be dismissed just because they are higher in cost or not
as efficient. I have heard that the pilots like to stay near home, but that means their
families and ours get exposed to all that noise. Adding any Growlers to an already
significantly affected area is unjustified. I know that there are other possibilities where
Growler training and basing can happen. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS
Whibey Island (map on page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be modified to minimize
routes over populated areas, to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler training flights
over populated areas should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c) Afterburners should not be
used on Growler training flights over Puget Sound. d) A Ground Run-up Enclosure or
Hush House should be used for noise suppression during all Growler training engine
run-ups and testing. e) Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the
General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. f) Notify citizens in advance of all
(FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). The EIS should fully evaluate one or
(b)(6)
2565

I live in Port Townsend and am concerned about the economic impacts of Growler jet
flights in the region. Specifically, I would like the EIS to address the following issues. The
quiet and pristine nature of this area attracts farmers, families, lovers of nature, cyclists,
hikers, kayakers, sailors, musicians, artists, summer residents and retirees. Some visitors
who have experienced the jet noise have stated that they will never return. Continuation
of the current level of jet noise, let alone increasing the number of jets, will discourage
visitors and reduce property values, inducing longtime residents, including myself, to
leave for quieter areas and bring their economic activities with them. Not including
Alternatives that base additional jets at other locations due to higher costs to the Navy
does not consider the broader economic consequences for the region. The EIS should
address economic impacts throughout Jefferson, San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit and Island
Counties.
(b)(6)
2566
Since you claim that you are going to review medical research on health impacts of your
Growler Jet Noise, please review the following pertinent articles. (b)(6)
Coupeville
1. Michalak R, Ising H, Rebentisch E. Acute circulatory effects of military low-altitude
flight noise. International archives of occupational and environmental health.
1990;62(5):365-72. 2. Basner M, Babisch W, Davis A, Brink M, Clark C, Janssen S, et al.
Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. Lancet. 2014;383(9925):1325-32. 3.
EPA U. Protective noise levels. 1978;550/9-79-100:1-28. 4. YAMANAKA K W-N, f.
KOBAYASHI, S. KANADA, M. TANAHASHI, T. MURAMATSU AND S. YAMADA.
CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF THE SHINKANSEN SUPER EXPRESS
TRAIN NOISE AND VIBRATION IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Journal of Sottnd and
Vibration. 1982;84(4):573-91. 5. WHO. Burden of disease from environmental noise
Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. Monographs WHO. 2011:1-126. 6.
Babisch W. Updated exposure-response relationship between road traffic noise and
coronary heart diseases: a meta-analysis. Noise Health. 2014;16(68):1-9. 7. de
Kluizenaar Y, Gansevoort RT, Miedema HM, de Jong PE. Hypertension and road traffic
noise exposure. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine / American College
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2007;49(5):484-92. 8. Munzel T, Gori T,
Babisch W, Basner M. Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise exposure.
European heart journal. 2014;35(13):829-36. 9. Lee EY, Jerrett M, Ross Z, Coogan PF,
Seto EY. Assessment of traffic-related noise in three cities in the United States.
Environmental research. 2014;132C:182-9. 10. Babisch W, Wolf K, Petz M, Heinrich J,
Cyrys J, Peters A. Associations between Traffic Noise, Particulate Air Pollution,
Hypertension, and Isolated Systolic Hypertension in Adults: The KORA Study.
Environmental health perspectives. 2014;122(5):492-8. 11. Chang TY, Hwang BF, Liu
CS, Chen RY, Wang VS, Bao BY, et al. Occupational noise exposure and incident
hypertension in men: a prospective cohort study. American journal of epidemiology.
2013;177(8):818-25. 12. Argalasova-Sobotova L, Lekaviciute J, Jeram S, Sevcikova L,
Jurkovicova J. Environmental noise and cardiovascular disease in adults: research in
Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and Newly Independent States. Noise
Health. 2013;15(62):22-31. 13. Hwang BF, Chang TY, Cheng KY, Liu CS.
Gene-environment interaction between angiotensinogen and chronic exposure to
occupational noise contribute to hypertension. Occupational and environmental medicine.
2012;69(4):236-42. 14. Babisch W, Swart W, Houthuijs D, Selander J, Bluhm G,
Pershagen G, et al. Exposure modifiers of the relationships of transportation noise with
high blood pressure and noise annoyance. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America. 2012;132(6):3788-808. 15. Chang TY, Liu CS, Huang KH, Chen RY, Lai JS,
Bao BY. High-frequency hearing loss, occupational noise exposure and hypertension: a
cross-sectional study in male workers. Environmental health : a global access science
source. 2011;10:35. 16. Lee Jh KWYSRCNLCR. Cohort study for the effect of chronic
noise exposure on blood pressure among male workers in Busan, Korea. American
journal of industrial medicine. 2009. 20 of 24 17. Babisch W, Kamp I. Exposure-response
relationship of the association between aircraft noise and the risk of hypertension. Noise
Health. 2009;11(44):161-8. 18. Sbihi H DHWDPA. Hypertension in noise-exposed
sawmill workers: a cohort study. Occupational and environmental medicine.
2008;65:643-6. 19. Rhee MY, Kim HY, Roh SC, Kim HJ, Kwon HJ. The effects of chronic
exposure to aircraft noise on the prevalence of hypertension. Hypertension research :
official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension. 2008;31(4):641-7. 20. Jarup L,
Babisch W, Houthuijs D, Pershagen G, Katsouyanni K, Cadum E, et al. Hypertension and
exposure to noise near airports: the HYENA study. Environmental health perspectives.
2008;116(3):329-33. 21. Haralabidis AS, Dimakopoulou K, Vigna-Taglianti F, Giampaolo
M, Borgini A, Dudley ML, et al. Acute effects of night-time noise exposure on blood
pressure in populations living near airports. European heart journal. 2008;29(5):658-64.
22. Ni Ch CZYZYZJWPJJLNWJLCKZZZZY. Associations of blood pressure and arterial
compliance with occupational noise exposure in female workers of textile mill. Chinese
Medical Journal. 2007;120(15):1309-13. 23. Leon Bluhm G BNNERM. Road traffic noise
and hypertension. Occupational and environmental medicine. 2007;64(2):122-6. 24.
Eriksson C, Rosenlund M, Pershagen G, Hilding A, Ostenson CG, Bluhm G. Aircraft
noise and incidence of hypertension. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass).
2007;18(6):716-21. 25. Tomei F, De Sio S, Tomao E, Anzelmo V, Baccolo TP, Ciarrocca
M, et al. Occupational exposure to noise and hypertension in pilots. Int J Environ Health
Res. 2005;15(2):99-106. 26. Jarup L, Dudley ML, Babisch W, Houthuijs D, Swart W,
Pershagen G, et al. Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports (HYENA): study
design and noise exposure assessment. Environmental health perspectives.
2005;113(11):1473-8. 27. Eriksson C RMPGHAOCGBG. Aircraft noise and incidence of
hypertension. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 2005;18(6)::716-21. 28. van Kempen
Emm KHBHCACBSBAMdHAEM. The association between noise exposure and blood
pressure and ischemic heart disease: a meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspectives.
2002;110(3):307-17. 29. Rosenlund M BNPGJLBG. Increased prevalence of
hypertension in population exposed to aircraft noise. Occupational and environmental
medicine. 2001;58:769-73. 30. Pattenden S. Air traffic noise and hypertension in
Stockholm County. Occupational and environmental medicine. 2001;58(12):761. 31.
Talbott EO, Gibson LB, Burks A, Engberg R, McHugh KP. Evidence for a dose-response
relationship between occupational noise and blood pressure. Archives of environmental
health. 1999;54(2):71-8. 32. Hessel Pa S-CGK. Occupational noise exposure and blood
pressure: longitudinal and cross-sectional observations in a group of underground
miners. Archives of environmental health. 1994;;49(2)::128-34. 33. Zhao Y, Zhang S,
Selvin S, Spear RC. A dose-response relationship for occupational noise-induced
hypertension. Schriftenr Ver Wasser Boden Lufthyg. 1993;88:189-207. 21 of 2 34.
Schulte W, Otten H. Results of a low-altitude flight noise study in Germany: long-term
extraaural effects. Schriftenr Ver Wasser Boden Lufthyg. 1993;88:322-38. 35. Zhao YM,
Zhang SZ, Selvin S, Spear RC. A dose response relation for noise induced hypertension.
Br J Ind Med. 1991;48(3):179-84. 36. Herbold M HHWKU. Effects of road traffic noise on
prevalence of hypertension in men: results of the Luebeck Blood Pressure Study. Soz
Praventivmed. 1989;;34(1)::19-23. 37. Wu Tn KYCCPY. Study of noise exposure and
high blood pressure in shipyard workers. American journal of industrial medicine.
1987;12:431-8. 38. Johsson A, Hansson L. Prolonged exposure to a stressful stimulus
(noise) as a cause of raised blood-pressure in man. Lancet. 1977;1(8002):86-7. 39.
Ettema Jh ZRL. Health effects of exposure to noise, particularly aircraft noise.
International Archives of Occupational Environmental Health. 1977;40:163-84. 40. Liu C,
Fuertes E, Tiesler CM, Birk M, Babisch W, Bauer CP, et al. The associations between
traffic-related air pollution and noise with blood pressure in children: results from the
GINIplus and LISAplus studies. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2014;217(4-5):499-505. 41.
2566
Tiesler CM, Birk M, Thiering E, Kohlbck G, Koletzko S, Bauer C-P, et al. Exposure to
road traffic noise and children's behavioural problems and sleep disturbance: Results
from the GINIplus and LISAplus studies. Environmental research. 2013;123:1-8. 42.
Paunovic K, Stansfeld S, Clark C, Belojevic G. Epidemiological studies on noise and
blood pressure in children: Observations and suggestions. Environ Int.
2011;37(5):1030-41. 43. Evans GW, Lercher P, Meis M, Ising H, Kofler WW. Community
noise exposure and stress in children. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
2001;109(3):1023-7. 44. Babisch W. Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk:
updated review and synthesis of epidemiological studies indicate that the evidence has
increased. Noise Health. 2006;8(30)::1-29. 45. Belojevic G S-TM. Prevalence of Arterial
Hypertension and Myocardial Infarction in Relation to Subjective Ratings of Traffic Noise
Exposure. Noise Health. 2002;4(16)::33-7. 46. Chang Ty STCLSYJRMCCC. Effects of
occupational noise exposure on 24-hour ambulatory vascular properties in male workers.
Environmental health perspectives. 2007;115(11):1660-4. 47. Davies HW, Teschke K,
Kennedy SM, Hodgson MR, Hertzman C, Demers PA. Occupational exposure to noise
and mortality from acute myocardial infarction. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass).
2005;16(1):25-32. 48. Fyhri A KR. Road traffic noise, sensitivity, annoyance and
self-reported health--a structural equation model exercise. Environ Int. 2009;35(1:91-7.
49. Heinonen-Guzejev M VHSM-RHHKKMKJ. The association of noise sensitivity with
coronary heart and cardiovascular mortality among Finnish adults. The Science of the
total environment. 2007;372(2-3):406-12. 50. Jarup L
BWHDPGKKCEDMLSPSISWBOBG. Hypertension and exposure to noise near airports:
the HYENA study. Environmental health perspectives. 2008;116(3):329-33. 22 of 24 51.
Neus H RHSW. Traffic noise and hypertension: an epidemiological study on the role of
subjective reactions. International archives of occupational and environmental health.
1983;51:223-9. 52. Passchier-Vermeer W PWF. Noise exposure and public health.
Environ Health Perspectives. 2000;108(1):123-31. 53. Stansfeld Sa MMP. Noise
pollution: non-auditory effects on health. British Medical Bulletin. 2003;68:243-57. 54.
Yiming Z SZSSSRC. A dose response relation for noise induced hypertension. British
Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1991;48:179-84. 55. Muzet A. Environmental noise, sleep
and health. Sleep Medicine Reviews. 2007;11:135-42. 56. Griefahn BaM, A.
Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbances and their Effects on Health. Journal of Sound and
Vibration. 1978;59(1):99-106. 57. Clark C, Crombie R, Head J, van Kamp I, van Kempen
E, Stansfeld SA. Does traffic-related air pollution explain associations of aircraft and road
traffic noise exposure on children's health and cognition? A secondary analysis of the
United Kingdom sample from the RANCH project. American journal of epidemiology.
2012;176(4):327-37. 58. Hygge S. Classroom experiments on the effects of different
noise sources and sound levels on longterm recall and recognition in children. Applied
Cognitive Psychology. 2003;17(8):895-914. 59. Banbury SP, Macken WJ, Tremblay S,
Jones DM. Auditory distraction and short-term memory: phenomena and practical
implications. Hum Factors. 2001;43(1):12-29. 60. Da Fonseca J, Dos Santos JM, Branco
NC, Alves-Pereira M, Grande N, Oliveira P, et al. Noise-induced gastric lesions: a light
and scanning electron microscopy study of the alterations of the rat gastric mucosa
induced by low frequency noise. Central European journal of public health. 2006;14(1).
61. Kim CY, Ryu JS, Hong SS. Effect of air-craft noise on gastric function. Yonsei
medical journal. 1968;9(2):149-54. 62. Akbayir N, Calis AB, Alkim C, Sokmen HM, Erdem
L, Ozbal A, et al. Sensorineural hearing loss in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:
a subclinical extraintestinal manifestation. Dig Dis Sci. 2005;50(10):1938-45. 63.
2566
Kalyoncu D, Urganci N, Calis AB, Ozbal A. Sensorineural hearing loss in pediatric

patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55(1):150-2. 64. Karmody
CS, Valdez TA, Desai U, Blevins NH. Sensorineural hearing loss in patients with
inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Otolaryngol. 2009;30(3):166-70. 65. Summers RW,
Harker L. Ulcerative colitis and sensorineural hearing loss: is there a relationship? J Clin
Gastroenterol. 1982;4(3):251-2. 66. Cohen S, Krantz DS, Evans GW, Stokols D.
Cardiovascular and Behavioral Effects of Community Noise: Evidence from field studies
of schoolchildren supports laboratory findings that high-intensity noise adversely affects
physical health and psychological functioning. American Scientist. 1981:528-35. 67.
Fonseca J, Martins-dos-Santos J, Oliveira P, Laranjeira N, Aguas A, Castelo-Branco N.
Noise-induced gastric lesions: a light and electron microscopy study of the rat gastric wall
exposed to low frequency noise. Arquivos de gastroenterologia. 2012;49(1):82-8. 23 of
24 68. Moslehi A, Nabavizadeh-Rafsanjani F, Keshavarz M, Rouhbakhsh N, Sotudeh M,
Salimi E. Traffic noise exposure increases gastric acid secretion in rat. Acta medica
Iranica. 2010;48(2):77-82. 69. Kasicka-Jonderko A, Jonderko K, Dolinski K, Dolinski M,
Kaminska M, Szymszal M, et al. Extracirculatory effects of noise of various frequency
spectra in humans--effect of pink and blue noise on gastric myoelectrical activity and
gastrointestinal passage of nutrients. Journal of smooth muscle research = Nihon
Heikatsukin Gakkai kikanshi. 2007;43(1):25-42. 70. Castle JS, Xing JH, Warner MR,
Korsten MA. Environmental noise alters gastric myoelectrical activity: Effect of age. World
J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(3):403-7. 71. da Fonseca J, dos Santos JM, Branco NC,
Alves-Pereira M, Grande N, Oliveira P, et al. Noise-induced gastric lesions: a light and
scanning electron microscopy study of the alterations of the rat gastric mucosa induced
by low frequency noise. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2006;14(1):35-8. 72. Mintchev MP,
Girard A, Bowes KL. Nonlinear adaptive noise compensation in electrogastrograms
recorded from healthy dogs. IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering.
2000;47(2):239-48. 73. Lercher P, Schmitzberger R, Kofler W. Perceived traffic air
pollution, associated behavior and health in an alpine area. The Science of the total
environment. 1995;169(1-3):71-4. 74. Bergmann JF, Caulin C, Geneve J, Simoneau G,
Segrestaa JM. Effect of psychological stress on gastric potential difference in man.
Agressologie: revue internationale de physio-biologie et de pharmacologie appliquees
aux effets de l'agression. 1991;32(2):127-9. 75. Yamanouchi I, Fukuhara H, Shimura Y.
The transmission of ambient noise and self-generated sound in the human body. Acta
paediatrica Japonica; Overseas edition. 1990;32(6):615-24. 76. Gue M, Fioramonti J,
Frexinos J, Alvinerie M, Bueno L. Influence of acoustic stress by noise on gastrointestinal
motility in dogs. Dig Dis Sci. 1987;32(12):1411-7. 77. Mashchenko NP, Lipkan GN,
Voitenko GN. [Use of plant and vitamin preparations to prevent stomach ulcers induced
by immobilization, noise and vibration in rats]. Fiziologicheskii zhurnal. 1982;28(1):103-6.
78. Hill AB. THE ENVIRONMENT AND DISEASE: ASSOCIATION OR CAUSATION?
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1965;58:295-300. 24 of 24
2566
(b)(6)
2567

I live on north Whidbey Island and I often hear the jets flying over my house (that I own).
Although it is sometimes annoying I fully support the Navy's operations here on Whidbey
Island. I used to live on Frostad Rd. directly under where the jets turned, at very low
altitudes, to line up with the runway that's at one end of Dugualla flats. The jets were a lot
louder there, although I still would support their operations if I still lived there. When I
moved from Frostad Rd. to my present house there was a significant drop in aircraft
noise, even though I'm still within a small area of Whidbey Island. Anyone who doesn't
like the jets can move within this community and realize a drastic reduction in aircraft
noise. It's their choice, and they should stop complaining and just move!
(b)(6)
2568
My granddaughter and her friends are camping in that area over Christmas break. I
object to my granddaughter being forced to experience militarization of the area in the
future, should this plan go forward. I say no to this proposal.
(b)(6)
2569
Sequim, WA 98382
I request that the Navy design a radius map for Growler noise disturbances across the
North Olympic Peninsula and San Juan Islands. I request that the Navy take full
measures to publicize the existence of such a map along with hotline Navy
noise-disturbance contact information. Residents must be offered an accountable way to
register noise disturbances within their homes and on their properties. Given that the
Navy proposes to fly more Growlers more often, such a map of current noise impacts
must be part of the Environmental Impact Statement. I also request that the Navy include
Environmental Impact Statements addressing noise issues and increased Growler flights
from Olympic National Marine Sanctuary, U.S Fish and Wildlife, and Olympic National
Park.
(b)(6)
2570

Let's give our kids at least a fighting chance at quiet brains, tranquil thoughts, peaceful
sleep. PLEASE no more Growlers. God Bless America.
(b)(6)
2571
, 98122
I live in Seattle but visit frequently Olympic National Park for hiking, recreation, peace and
tranquility. Any experience of the intrusive noise from NASWI will be a reason to go
elsewhere. It is going to put the people and businesses of the effected counties at an
economic disadvantage as many other visitors will choose to go elsewhere. The EIS
should address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and
Island Counties.
(b)(6)
2572
Bend, OR
My name is (b)(6)
, resident of Oregon. I am a frequent visitor of the San Juan
Islands. I travel there to find peace, enjoy the sea animals, fresh air and quite
surroundings. The noise levels on islands from growlers have increased to a disturbing
level of mental disruption. The documentation is not supporting Growler activity for a
good cause. Please dont leave disaster from your actions. Aircraft noise, another issue
the Navy itself. Past Analysis Insufficient- The EIS analysis should incorporate
supplemental noise measurements including Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak
Sound Level (Lmax) in addition to Ldn. Document the projected annual number of events
that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted areas
including San Juan County. 2. Health effects Startle Reaction from Growler training- The
EIS should address the health effects of Startle Reactions. Conduct medical surveys on
the impacted populations including San Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for
all Growler activity. 3. Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children- The EIS should address
the health effects of Startle Reactions. Conduct medical surveys on the impacted
activity. 4. Noise disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead to health disorders and
interfere with convalescence from illness.-The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A
survey of the residents in the study area including San Juan County should document the
extent of this problem. An Alternative Schedule that removes FCLP and CCA practice
from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. 5. Loss
of Control- The EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include
Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). 6. No
Alternative Sites Considered-We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just
more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. 7.
Mitigation-a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island should be modified to
minimize routes over populated areas including the south end of Lopez Island to the
Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c) Afterburners should not be used
on Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. d) A Ground Run-up Enclosure or
Hush House should be used for noise suppression during all Growler training engine
General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. f) Notify citizens in advance of all
Growler training operations at either airfield including Field Ca Field
Carrier Landing
Practice (FCLP), Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). 8. Deficiencies in the 2005 and
2012 Environmental Assessments- This EIS should conduct all analysis from the
beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and Records of Decision for
the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. The EIS should address economic
impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Thank
you for your attention to my comments in advance. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2573
, WA
It is inappropriate to use the Day-night average sound level measurement technique for
assessing noise impacts for humans and wildlife; instead the sound exposure level
needs to b used. Averaging noise levels over 24 hour periods is completely inappropriate
for the :Outlying field (OLF) as long periods of quiet are averaged with extremely high
levels of noise. The shorter, high impact period are what needs to be measured without
watering down these high decibel levels. More fundamentally, the full suite of impacts
due to high noise with the proposed additional Growler flights to children, adults, birds,
mammals, and other wildlife need to be fully assessed and either avoided or mitigated.
(b)(6)
2574
, WA
The EIS which is being prepared must include full evaluation of the many peer-reviewed
studies which clearly documenting negative health effects due to aircraft noise for
assessing increased growler flights, including cardiac problems, blood pressure rise,
permanent hearing damage. These include studies by the USDOT, USEPA, and the
Word Health organization. This will need to include increased flight form Ault Field, the
OLF, as well as all populated areas subjected to increased aircraft noise in Island, San
Juan, Jefferson, and Clallam counties.
(b)(6)
2575
,
The EIS which is being prepared must include full evaluation of fuel dumping form
growler jets on surrounding communities, the Olympic National Forest, Olympic National
Park, as well as the host of species using the waters of Admiralty Inlet, the Strait of Juan
de Fuca, and Puget Sound, including endangered chinook, bull trout, other salmon, and
orca whales. The Navy has acknowledged fuel dumping occurs west of the runways at
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island and almost certainly occurs elsewhere in the region.
Evaluation must include evaluation of the fate of heavy metals and other toxic
compounds, and the effects of these toxic compounds that eventually fall to the surface.
(b)(6)
2576
,
Ground based activities planned for Pacific Beach and Octopus Mountain, as outlined in
the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA), should
not have been separated from this draft EIS, and should be reincorporated and evaluated
in combination with all other likely impacts, as required by NEPA.
(b)(6)
2577

I am (b)(6)
and am a full time resident (15 years) at 642 Cape St. Mary Road,
Lopez Island. Any increase in the number of Growlers at Whidbey should first require a
full EIS concerning the noise and vibration impacts upon marine life in the area and also
upland wildlife. There are times when I cannot carry on a conversation near the water on
my property. What effect does Whidbey jet noise level have on birds, Orcas and dolphins,
as well as migrating Sockeye, Pink, Coho and Chinook salmon and the forage fish that
feed and spawn in the south end of Lopez Island?
(b)(6)
2578
, WA 98363
I am deeply concerned about the many interrelated issues being discussed (and not
discussed) with regard to the Growler jets and the Naval Warfare training proposals for
Whidbey Island and the surrounding communities, wild and domesticated, water, land,
and air. I have been on Whidbey Island and on the ferry during jet "practices" and have
been greatly distressed at the distracting noise while driving. We have too many jets and
too much noise already. The Olympic Peninsula, with its internationally recognized
national park as well as various wilderness areas, cannot tolerate these jets or their
noise. Period. NO MORE GROWLERS. Our sanity, and the future success of various
endangered species, clean air and clean water for all, depend upon our willingness to
protect and defend the sanctity of the natural world. This does NOT include GROWLER
aircraft. I will have more to say. This is a start.
(b)(6)
2579
Friday harbor, WA 98250

I am opposed to the addition of any more growlers. The noise levels are already
disturbing my health and well being. It's a farce to even say this is a matter of our
security.
(b)(6)
2580
Santa Fe, NM 87506

(b)(6)
January 3, 2015 Re: EIS Scoping

comments I am a retired nuclear physicist with a Ph. D. in physics from the University of
Colorado. I worked for 23 years at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and for shorter
periods at Oregon State University and Santa Fe Community College. From our home in
Santa Fe, NM, my wife and I spend 30-40 days per year traveling, hiking, biking, and
camping in the National Forests and Parks in the western United States. Three of our
most memorable trips have been to the Olympic Peninsula where we hiked in the
National Park and Forrest. In the Rockies we have been jarred by the noise from
low-flying jets that confused us, struck us with fear, hurt our ears and destroyed our
enjoyment of the forrest. Both human and native animal residents of the Olympic
Peninsula do not deserve to have their health destroyed by noise and electronic radiation
from jets. Correct Deficiencies in the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments The
2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments (EAs) are deficient in the following areas:
Analysis Human health consequences Alternatives Mitigation Economic
consequences The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan,
Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Assessments in the 2005 and 2012
Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) are inadequate to support the findings. The
Navy must enhance the analysis in order to support proposed actions in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This EIS should conduct all analysis from the
the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. A. In the 2012 EA, Figure 3-4, Projected
2013 DNL Noise Contours for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville indicates that San Juan
County (SJC) is outside the affected area. This does not reflect citizen experience. The
residents experience Growler activity that is loud and disruptive. Possible factors may
include flights at lower elevation than assumed and ducting of jet noise between water
and clouds. It is good engineering practice to verify computer simulations with actual
measurements. Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of San
Juan County over a one-month period. B. Sound measurements and analysis in the EAs
used the A Weighting. This approximates the response of the human ear and according
to the cited studies in the EAs is linked to hearing loss and annoyance. Growler engine
noise has a signature low frequency component that is ignored by A Weighting. There is
annoyance as addressed in other comments. Growler sound measurement with
C Weighting, which includes most of the low frequency spectrum, is expected to be 10 to
20 dB higher than A Weighting. We believe that C Weighting would also indicate that the
Growler events are louder than the Prowler. A fundamental assumption in the EAs, that
the Growler is quieter, is incorrect. Include C Weighted sound measurements and
analysis in the EIS. Reference: Low Frequency Noise Study; Hodgdon, Atchley,
Bernhard; April 2007
http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj1/lfnreport-2007-001.pdf C. For decades
times including takeoffs and Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP's) Sound
measurement and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or the Navy should
commit in the mitigation section of the Record of Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners
in training flights.
2580
(b)(6)
2581
Santa Fe, NM 87506

(b)(6)

enjoyment of the forest. Both human and native animal residents of the Olympic
from jets. Mitigation At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully
NAS Whibey Island should be modified to minimize routes over populated areas including
the south end of Lopez Island to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler training flights
over populated areas including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c)
Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. d) A
Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used for noise suppression during
all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. e) Test, acquire and deploy noise
reduction measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. f) Notify
Respectfully submitted, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2582
Santa Fe, NM 87506

No Alternative Sites Considered. There are no alternatives that base the Growlers at a
location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Section 1500.14 of the Council on
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives . I believe that alternatives should
not be dismissed just because they are higher in cost or not as efficient. The EIS should
fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS
Whidbey Island. Respectfully submitted, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2583
Santa Fe, NM 87506

(b)(6)

from jets. Loss of Control Residents are never informed if a blast of noise is going to be a
single 30 second event or the beginning of 3 hours of noise from training. This severely
of Control. Mitigation should include notifying citizens in advance of all Growler training
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). Respectfully submitted, (b)(6)
,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2584
Santa Fe, NM 87506

(b)(6)

from jets. Noise disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead to health disorders and
interfere with convalescence from illness. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A
extent of this problem. An Alternative Schedule that removes Field Carrier Landing
Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs) practice from Ault field
between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. Respectfully submitted,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2585
Santa Fe, NM 87506

(b)(6)

from jets. Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children Research shows that children can be
very distressed over military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror,
panic, screaming, freezing in place, palpitations, shaking, dizziness, bed wetting, sleep
disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. The EIS should
specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children. Parents, teachers and
(b)(6)
2586
Santa Fe, NM 87506

(b)(6)

from jets. Health effects Startle Reaction from Growler training The startle factor is a
duration noise measurement as the body reacts with fight or flight response with resultant
nervous, hormonal and vascular changes. The jet noise experienced is not unlike the
noise of an earthquake, a strong wind or a chimney fire. Research shows that humans do
not become accustomed to repeated noise at this level. The EIS should address the
activity. Respectfully submitted, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2587
Santa Fe, NM 87506

(b)(6)

from jets. Past Analysis Insufficient For decades studies of airport noise have used the
Day-Night Average (Ldn) metric for assessing impacts, appropriate for airports with
typical operations 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. However, Growler training flights cause
intermittent noise in a region with very low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside
measurement), much lower than the quiet suburban neighborhood background noise
level cited in the Wyle report for the 2012 EA. The EIS analysis should incorporate
including San Juan County. Respectfully submitted, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2588
Santa Fe, NM 87506

(b)(6)

from jets. Mitigation At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully
NAS Whibey Island should be modified to minimize routes over populated areas including
the south end of Lopez Island to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler training flights
over populated areas including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c)
(b)(6)
2589
Santa Fe, NM 87506

(b)(6)

from jets. No Alternative Sites Considered. There are no alternatives that base the
Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Section 1500.14 of the Council on
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives . I believe that alternatives should
not be dismissed just because they are higher in cost or not as efficient. The EIS should
fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS
Whidbey Island. Respectfully submitted, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Santa Fe, NM 87506

(b)(6)

from jets. Loss of Control Residents are never informed if a blast of noise is going to be a
of Control. Mitigation should include notifying citizens in advance of all Growler training
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). Respectfully submitted,
(b)(6)
2591
Shaw Island, WA 98286

The US Navy Growlers are too noisy and out of place in the San Juan Islands. The A6's
and other previous aircraft were rarely noticed. The Growler Aircraft has a manyfold
worse impact on the quality of our lives.
(b)(6)
2592
Santa Fe, NM 87507

1. Past analysis insufficient: The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise
(b)(6)
2593
Santa Fe, NM 87507

2. Health effects Startle Reaction from Growler training The EIS should address the
activity.
(b)(6)
2594
Santa Fe, NM 87507

3. Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children The EIS should specifically address the issue
of Growler noise on children. Parents, teachers and children should be questioned about
behavioral responses to Growler noise. Mitigation should include shifting flight patterns to
avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village.
(b)(6)
2595
Santa Fe, NM 87507

4. Noise disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead to health disorders and interfere with
convalescence from illness. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the
residents in the study area including San Juan County should document the extent of this
problem. An Alternative Schedule that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault field
between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied.
(b)(6)
2596
Santa Fe, NM 87507

5. Loss of Control The EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should
include notifying citi zens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield
including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches
(CCAs).
(b)(6)
2597
Santa Fe, NM 87507

6. No Alternative Sites Considered. We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed
just because they are higher in cost or not as efficient. The EIS should fully evaluate one
or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2598
Santa Fe, NM 87507

7. Mitigation a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island should be modified
to minimize routes over populated areas including the south end of Lopez Island to the
(b)(6)
2599
Santa Fe, NM 87507

8. Deficiencies in the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments This EIS should
conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis
and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments.
(b)(6)
2600
Santa Fe, NM 87507

8. Deficiencies in the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments The EIS should
Counties.
(b)(6)
2601
,
EIS scoping and analysis should include the impacts of additional jet fuel burned by the
proposed additional growler jets, to include fuel use per hour up to annual total
consumption of all proposed additional jets, as well as the carbon put into the
atmosphere, relative to consumption by cars and other common fuel uses in the area.
(b)(6)
2602

I have lived at the south end of Lopez for almost nine years. We live on property which
has been in my husband's family for over 50 years. At the best, the noise from the
Whidbey Island Air Base is a hindrance. At its worse, its become very scary for me on
occasion. In the last year noise and over - flights from the Growlers at Ault field has
exceeded anything we have experienced. All the reasons we have chosen to live here a
re being degraded by the constant noise, vibration and intrusive over - flights of Growlers.
The Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact area. This is clearly
false. The EIS should study the following: A. Conduct continuous sound measurements in
the southern portion of SJC over a one - month period. B. Include C - Weighted sound
measurements and analysis in the EIS. C. The EIS analysis should incorporate
Sound Level (Lmax ) in addition t o Ldn . Document the projected annual number of
events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5 dB increments throughout the impacted
include afterburners or the Navy should co mmit in the mitigation section of the Record of
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. Thank you for reading this
comment. (b)(6)
, Lopez Island, WA 98261
(b)(6)
2603

I have lived on the North end of Lopez Island since 1985. In the last year noise and over
flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything we have experienced in the
last 28 years. All the reasons we have chosen to live here are being degraded by the
constant noise, vibration and intrusive overflights of Growlers. The Navy considers San
Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact area. This is clearly false. Analysis in the
2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was inadequate to support
the findings. The Navy must enhance the analysis in order to support proposed actions in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS should study the following: A.
Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a
one-month period. B. Include C-Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS.
C. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements including
Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (Lmax) in addition to Ldn .
Document the projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5
dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County. D. Sound
in training flights. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2604

I have lived at the south end of Lopez for almost nine years. We live on property which
has been in my husband's family for over 50 years. At the best, the noise from the
Whidbey Island Air Base is a hindrance. At its worse, its become very scary for me on
occasion. The jets from NASWI have not bothered me much until this last year. Now I
experience them all over the Island. If I want to walk on our new National Monument
lands at Iceberg Point they are the predominant so und - not birds or waves or sea lions.
If Im in the Village I experience them often with their deafening vibrations. Even at our
ferry landing at the north end their noise is not uncommon. I recently visited a friend on
Shaw Island. The noise was intru sive there. At night when the island used to be quiet the
hours of blasting and roaring can be heard until late at night. I do not understand why this
EIS does not include an Alternative that would base Growlers somewhere other than
NASWI. .Section 150 0.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires
that Agencies shall (a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives. The introduction of the Growler is negatively impacting San Juan County
and the whole reg ion. Alternatives should not be dismissed just because they are higher
in cost or not as efficient. Adding any Growlers to an already significantly affected area is
unjustified. I know that there are other possibilities where Growler training and basing can
happen. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a
location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Thank you for reading this comment. (b)(6)
, Lopez Island, WA 98261
(b)(6)
2605

I have been following the EIS process for the past year. It appears that both the 2005 and
the 2012 Environmental Assessments were deficient and incomplete. The Growlers were
moved to NASWI without a full EIS and without sufficient study of noise impacts, health
even considered. San Juan County was considered a no significant impact area. Clearly
Assessments. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2606

I live in the Village side of Lopez Island. Overflights and blasts of noise and vibrations
from Growlers and operation at Ault Field are degrading many of the reasons we chose
to live on the island. When the jets are flying the noise is often so intense that
conversation stops. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of
Modified by Personal Control over Noise Intensity. Biol Psychol, 6:5159, 1978. Singer JE,
Acri JB, Schaeffer MH: Cognitive Changes from Noise Exposure. In Bergland B, Lindvall
T (eds): Noise as a Public Health Problem. New Advances in Noise Research (volume I
of proceedings of the 5th international congress on noise as a public health problem, held
in Stockholm, Aug. 2125, 1988), Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, pp
401410, 1990. Bargen R: Airspace Blues, Airspace, Gabbs, Nev, p 424, 1989. The EIS
Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2607
Technology has changed and so has the Navy's plans for activities in our area of
Whidbey Island. Unfortunately there is a much bigger impact than in the past to the
residents of the Island. We need to find a common ground to Cordially, exist. I would like
to see and participate in this process. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2608
, WA
I strongly object the Navys electronic warfare testing and training on the Olympic
Peninsula plan. Please do not move forward with this operation which will cause harm to
our environment and potentially human welfare. This is unacceptable. Thank you.
(b)(6)
2609

I recently moved to the Olympic Peninsula as a place where nature is valued and
preserved. I am gravely concerned about not only the effects of these proposed actions
on the quality of life of humans and marine life in the area, but also the potentially
disastrous effects on businesses in the area. As examples only: Port Townsend will lose
visitors; fishermen and women will lose livelihoods; local businesses will lose tourism
dollars. These are known and demonstrable effects, without a concomitant compelling
need for these effects to occur. No such changes should legally be undertaken unless the
relevant governmental arm (Navy, etc.) has demonstrated a compelling reason that this is
necessary to the common good, which they have been sorely lacking in doing. I request
that further study be done by an impartial party on the potentially devastating effects to
human health, wildlife, and the businesses of the affected areas before this seemingly
unnecessary expansion be authorized. Thank you.
(b)(6)
2610

I believe that the Navy hasn't demonstrated that the benefits of the Airfield Operations--or
"War Games"--is worth the environmental and economic risks to the fragile ecosystems
and small business of Whidbey Island and the Olympic Peninsula. I will asking my
elected representatives.
(b)(6)
2611
Eastsound, WA 98245
Please address the following in your EIS work: Conduct continuous sound measurements
in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period. Include C Weighted sound
including San Juan County. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. The EIS should address the
activity. The EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include
Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). The
EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children. Parents, teachers
and children should be questioned about behavioral responses to Growler noise.
Mitigation should include shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and
Lopez Village. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in
the study area including San Juan County should document the extent of this problem.
An Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault field between 2000 and
0800 hours should be developed and studied. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more
alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. At a
timelines for completion. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on
page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be modified to minimize routes over populated
areas including the south end of Lopez Island to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler
training flights over populated areas including San Juan County should be above 3,000
feet elevation. c) Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over North
Puget Sound. d) A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used for noise
suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. e) Test, acquire and
Growlers. f) Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield
including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP), Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
Jefferson and Island Counties. This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning
and should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005
and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2612
Arlington, WA 98223
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA
23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS EA-18G EIS Project Manager January 4, 2015 To provide
objective input on the proposal our family attended one of the public scoping meeting
workshops. Being in land use regulation for a profession we appreciated the opportunity
to talk directly with the Navy staff impacted by the resulting decision. Our impression of
the Navy staff was positive, but their willingness to adapt the proposal to minimize
impacts seemed non-negotiable. It felt a little like our time was wasted and the decision
had already been made. However we also know in decisions like this it is up the
leadership to make the choice based on cumulative impact and have faith that a choice
will be made that meets regulation while being acceptable to the impacted community.
There are several reasons listed below as to why the best choice would be no action, or
at a minimum alternative 1 with expeditionary flights. The main argument from the pilots
at the scoping meeting was that the OLF provided a realistic simulation of nighttime
landings on an aircraft carrier due to darkness. The weakness in their argument is that
there are over 200 homes and lights directly south of the field illuminating the approach
which would certainly not be the case on an aircraft carrier in open water. The pilots
second argument when requesting they make wider turns further away from the
residential neighborhood and public beaches was their necessity for training automatic
reflex conditioning of the tight turns needed for landing on an aircraft carrier. We totally
understand and support repetition exercise to install body memory but this training does
not have to occur over a residential neighborhood and federally recognized recreational
beaches (Crocket Lake). This repetitive action training could be conducted at higher
altitudes, over the Navy base or open water. In the world of shrinking economies, growing
deficits and advancing technologies the use of drones will take away the risks to pilots. In
a quick 10-minute internet search it shows decades of our US military considering and
developing the use of drones for electronic counter measures (VAQ) missions. Does this
current proposal actually meet the cost benefit ratio that will be incurred by the time the
proposal is implemented? We recommend the use of drones be assessed as an
alternative which may result in far less impact to the environment while providing a better
cost/benefit ratio to the tax payer. Our comments are submitted as a request to deny the
additional flights at OLF due to excessive impacts to residential neighborhoods
exceeding what would normally be acceptable off the grounds of a military airfield. The
existing flights may already be damaging to humans outdoors not able to access hearing
protection while performing their job duties, home maintenance or simply enjoying the
areas recreational opportunities. In March of 2012 we were outside visiting the beach
community known as Admiralty Cove when fighter jets began practicing approaches to
the OLF. Our family included one-year and three year old children. The children were
clearly impacted by the flight noise and we quickly had to abandon the outside activity.
There is also a financial impact reducing the values of residentially zoned beach front and
upland housing that is many miles from the actual Naval Base (Ault Field) where noise
would be anticipated and acceptable. The noise study submitted with the EIS cites a 1.8
2.3 % reduced property value per dbh. This is significant to many of the landowners
impacted by flight operations not occurring on a military base. Once again we request the
No Action, or Alternative 1 with expeditionary flights be chosen as they would not result
in additional financial loss due to the reduced property value. In a letter dated June 12,
2012 DOE concurred with the Navys negative determination that the previously
proposed action would not affect the coastal resource or uses of Washington State due to
the planes being ground based expeditionary per, Section 6 Other Considerations, Page
6-4 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16CRF1451 et seq.) Washington Dept. of
Ecology. However, the Coastal Zone Management Act provides for the use of the coastal
areas for public recreation which was not referenced in the DOE review and response.
Dept. of Ecologys response confirmed no impact to Washington State Coastal
Resources but neglected to address the impact for human recreational access in the
approach areas of OLF in the off military base areas that already experience noise levels
above 75dbh. The current use does disturb users of the public and private beach/coastal
areas in the Admiralty Cove area and any increase in flights will further decrease the
publics ability to recreate in a safe and enjoyable manner. The OLF approach area is not
on the Navy base and the significant noise resulting from full power aircraft carrier
simulation approaches of the OLF will disturb people and therefore is inconsistent with
the CZMA. The new proposal may in fact displace existing jobs related to recreational
fishing and wildlife watching and should be factored in to the overall impact. A May 10,
2012 letter from Allison Crain states the previous proposal would not interfere with public
access. However, a review of the CZMA public access element as impacted by the new
proposal alternatives should be required. Loud noise is especially a risk to children and
when on approach the planes may be using full power to simulate carrier landings and
exceed 75dbh and could cause permanent hearing damage to children not aware to
cover their ears. Page 6-5EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (EO 13045, 62 Federal Register 1985) U.S. Navy Children would
not be disproportionately exposed to environmental health risks or safety risks by the
proposed action 800 AGL flight elevation. Especially flight tracks 32TD1 32TD2 and
32TD3 cause planes to approach in what appears when on site to be below the allowed
800AGL and exceed 75dbh potentially causing hearing damage, preventing people from
being able to enjoy the coastal resources, and reducing property values compared to
neighboring residential areas. The noise study in your documentation has the following
paragraph In another study of 115 test subjects between 18 and 50 years old in 1999,
temporary threshold shifts were measured after laboratory exposure to military
low-altitude flight noise (Ising, et al.1999). According to the authors, the results indicate
that repeated exposure to military low-altitude flight noise with Lmax greater than 114dB,
especially if the noise level increases rapidly, may have the potential to cause noise
induced hearing loss in humans. Specifically for children the report states Research on
the impacts of aircraft noise, and noise in general, on the cognitive abilities of
school-aged children has received more attention in recent years. Several studies
suggest that aircraft noise can affect the academic performance of school-age children,
although many factors could contribute to learning deficits in school-age children (e.g.,
socioeconomic level, home environment, diet, sleep patterns), evidence exists that
suggest that chronic exposure to high aircraft noise levels can impair learning. Once
again we request the No Action or Alternative 1 expeditionary proposal to not add any
additional noise related damage to the children or other people living and recreating in
the impacted area. The EA cites (WSCC 2004) there are no fresh water systems large
enough to support ESA listed species Chinook Salmon. Did the reviewer include Beamer
2003 The importance of non-natal pocket estuaries in Skagit Bay or more recent 2006
paper on the same subject? There are at least two pocket estuaries immediately
2612
south/southwest of the OLF. I believe that any new information that provides a better
understanding of the needs of a listed species requires an assessment of applying
adaptive management strategies to reduce the potential for take of that species under the
Endangered Species Act. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and request the
Navy do nothing that will increase the impact of flight operations on the residential areas
away from Navy Base Whidbey. We have no problem with increased activity on the base
itself, but the activity at the OLF is not compatible with the large number of residential
homes and coastal access recreation and job opportunities in the area. Specifically, the
risk to children and other individuals that could end up with permanent damage as a
result of the excessive noise associated with aircraft carrier simulated landings. Please
maintain us as party of record, and send any associated correspondence, by e-mail if
possible (our email is (b)(6)
) (b)(6)
2612
(b)(6)
2613

I live on the south end of Lopez Island in a home I purchased seven years ago. The jet
noise has gotten significantly worse over that time. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012
Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was inadequate to support the findings. The
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A. In the 2012 EA, Figure 3-4, Projected 2013
DNL Noise Contours for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville indicates that San Juan County
(SJC) is outside the affected area. This does not reflect citizen experience. We
experience Growler activity that is loud and disruptive. Possible factors may include
flights at lower elevation than assumed and ducting of jet noise between water and
clouds. It is good engineering practice to verify computer simulations with actual
measurements. Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC
over a one-month period. B. Sound measurements and analysis in the EAs used the A
Weighting. This approximates the response of the human ear and according to the cited
studies in the EAs is linked to hearing loss and annoyance. Growler engine noise has a
signature low frequency component that is ignored by A Weighting. There is substantial
evidence that low frequency sounds have deleterious health impacts beyond annoyance
as addressed in other comments. Growler sound measurement with C Weighting, which
(b)(6)
2614

noise has gotten significantly worse over that time. San Juan County has a low
background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside). County residents are routinely exposed 90
114 dBA (outside) blasts of noise from Growler over flights and operations at Ault Field
resulting in startle reactions. This noise is perceived subconsciously by the human body
as a danger signal. The body reacts with fight or flight response with resultant nervous,
hormonal and vascular changes. The jet noise experienced is not unlike the noise of an
earthquake, a strong wind or a chimney fire. Research shows that humans do not
become accustomed to repeated noise at this level. References: Kryter K: Physiological,
populations including San Juan County. Noise mitigation should be put in place for all
Growler activity.
(b)(6)
2615

noise has gotten significantly worse over that time. Residents of San Juan County
experience Growler jet noise at all times of the day and night. The noise ranges from 65
110 dBA and 75 124 dBC (inside) and is the result of over flights, engine testing and
training operations. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of
(b)(6)
2616

I live on the south end of Lopez in a home I purchased seven years ago. The jet noise
has gotten significantly worse over that time. On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely fly
over our school in the middle of the island and over Lopez Village where our Preschool
and Childrens Center is located. Research shows that children can be very distressed
over military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror, panic, screaming,
freezing in place, palpitations, shaking, dizziness, bed wetting, sleep disturbances, nail
biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. References: Goldman B: Sheshatshit,
Labrador A Town without Hope. Can Med Assoc J, 141:602-605,1989.1162 (b)(6) Page
13 of 23. Bartels K: Medizinische/psychosomatische Auswirkung von lieffluglarm. In
Kinder und Tiefflug. Dokumentation des Expertenforums zu den Auswirkungen des
Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 18-22, 1989. Preuss S: Militarischer Jiefflug
Und Seine Psychischen Auswirkun gen Auf Kinder. In Kinder und Tiefflug.
Dokumentation des Expertenfonims zu den Auswirkungen des Tieffluglarms auf Kinder,
Bonn, June 12, pp 3-8, 1989. The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler
noise on children. Parents, teachers and children should be questioned about behavioral
responses to Growler noise. Mitigation should include shifting flight patterns to avoid the
Lopez Island School and Lopez Village.
(b)(6)
2617

has gotten significantly worse over that time. San Juan County residents regularly
experience Growler jet noise between the hours of 8 pm and 12 midnight. During the
summer the noise often continues to 1 am. The indoor threshold for falling asleep is
35-40 dBA. San Juan County residents noise journals show that indoor sound levels
protection does not help. Using the Day-Night Average (Ldn) noise measure does not
take into account that our bodies do not average sleep loss. Noise annoyance during the
night increases noise annoyance for the following 24 hours. Noise disruptions and sleep
disturbance can lead to health disorders and interfere with convalescence from illness.
Low frequency sound, such as the Growler emits, is significantly disturbing even at low
sound pressure levels. References: LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking Performance
(b)(6)
2618

has gotten significantly worse over that time. The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS
States: The alternatives include variations of the following factors: 1. Total number of
aircraft to be purchased 2. Number of aircraft assigned per squadron 3. Number of
land-based squadrons. 4. The distribution of aircraft operations at NAS Whidbey Island
between Ault Field and OLF Coupeville There are no alternatives that base the Growlers
at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Section 1500.14 of the Council on
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives . We believe that alternatives
should not be dismissed just because they are higher in cost or not as efficient. The EIS
should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other
than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2619

has gotten significantly worse over that time. We want the Navy to implement all feasible
measures to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on citizens including San
included in the proposed action or alternatives. We believe that the 2005 and 2012
impact. Therefore it was inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. At a minimum the
a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on page 11 of the scoping
booklet) should be modified to minimize routes over populated areas including the south
end of Lopez Island to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler training flights over
populated areas including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c)
Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP), Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
(b)(6)
2620

has gotten significantly worse over that time. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan
nature, cyclists, hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. Some visitors
visitors and reduce property values. Not including Alternatives that base additional jets at
other locations due to higher costs to the Navy does not consider the broader economic
consequences for the region. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San
Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties.
(b)(6)
2621

has gotten significantly worse over that time. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments (EAs) are deficient in the following areas as noted in numerous comments.
consequences This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not
rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments.
(b)(6)
2622
,
Hello, I think the impact noise of the growlers is very significant. I live on the Strait in
Sequim and the rumbling from the jets tilts the pictures on the wall. I think the Navy
should: The EIS should study the following: A. Conduct continuous sound measurements
in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period. B. Include C-Weighted sound
measurements and analysis in the EIS. C. The EIS analysis should incorporate
that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5 dB increments throughout the impacted areas
including San Juan County. D. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. Sincerely Your Name
(b)(6)
2623
,
Hello, I live on the Strait in Sequim. Early this morning a Growler flew over and woke me
up. Without proper sleep I do not function very well and find myself more susceptible to
colds. The EIS should address the health effects of Startle Reactions. Medical surveys
should be conducted on the impacted populations including San Juan County. Mitigation
should be put in place for all Growler activity. Sincerely Your Name (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2624
,
Hello, I live in Sequima and am beginning to feel like I am in a war zone. I am elderly and
choose to live in this area for peace and quiet. Having war planes fly over at any time is
not peaceful The EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should
include notifying citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield
(CCA). Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2625
,
Hello, I live on the Strait in Sequim. I must tell you that my sleep is being interrupted by
these planes. Our bodies do not average sound. I feel that living with the sleep
disruptions from the Growlers is affecting my health. The EIS should address sleep
disturbance. A survey of the residents in the study area including San Juan County as
well as Clallam County should document the extent of this problem. An Alternative that
removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be
developed and studied. Thank you (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2626
,
Hello, I think this plan will be very bad for the Peninsula and Olympic National Park. The
planes have become a real disturbance over the park. Soon people will no longer come
here and we will suffer economically. Adding any Growlers to an already significantly
affected area is unjustified. I know that there are other possibilities where Growler training
and basing can happen. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that
bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2627
,
Hello, Of course there has been impact from the Growlers. Why otherwise would we be
sending these comments I believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments
areas, including the south end of Lopez Island, to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler
(CCA). Sincerely (b)(6)
2628
,
This plan will definitely affect the tourist trade on the Olympic Peninsula. People come
here because it is a place of peace and natural beauty. Olympic National Park is a World
Heritage Site and is considered one of the "Last Great Places" according to the United
Nations. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom,
Skagit, Jefferson, CLALLAM and Island Counties. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2629
,
Hello, I have been following the EIS process for the the past four months. It appears that
both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were deficient and incomplete.
The Growlers were moved to NASWI without a full EIS and without sufficient study of
noise impacts, health consequences, plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and
economic impacts to the region. The low frequency noise which is the signature noise of
the Growler was not even considered. San Juan County was considered a no significant
impact area. Clearly this is not the case. This EIS should conduct all analysis from the
2012 Environmental Assessments. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2630
Bethesda, MD 20817
Recently heard there are plans for navy air craft to do practice runs over the Wasington
Olympic Peninsula especially the western coastal regions and even the hoh rainforest,
basically the entire Olympic National Forest. I am absolutely in love with this area
purposely for its nature and silence. I work in a noisy city and now started planning to buy
a house on this peninsula. I am absolutely against any navy air craft noises and practices
on or around the Olympic peninsula!!!! I have traveled all over the United states to find a
beautiful AND quiet home, and I finally feel I found a home here on the Prninsula, please
please please please don't allow these war practices or any air craft practices to happen
here as I have spent years and years finding a place just like this for its nature and
silence to raise my family! You will hurt the animals, you will hurt us, and you will certainly
hurt the trees and plants. Please please please don't come here, please... If I had enough
money, to move this practice somewhere else, I would! So if you want money to move
this please let me know and I will organize a fund, just please please please don't do
anything loud or fly anything in it around the Olympic peninsula!!! Also, I am an civil
engineer, and so I do very much so understand the need for this research and activities
that you want to conduct, I do ask that you still conduct them else where. Thank you for
your time.
(b)(6)
2631
I live in Admiral's cove. I think the Navy should be aware that the real estate noise form
for admiral cove states that the noise level exceeds 100dba, under US Department of
Housing the noise level in residential areas should not exceed 60 dba. The zone 2/3 map
available on-line (Aug 2002) to the buyers is flawed. The actual noise levels are much
higher than depicted. Buyer's are mislead by the depicted zones. Also, can the 1st gear
up pass be at a slower airspeed or eliminated? It is the noisiest pass and provides
questionable training. If someone from NAS would like to observe in person I will be glad
to accompany them. Thank You
(b)(6)
2632
Victoria, v8r5h6
I am deeply concerned that the amount of Growlers flying around the SanJuan will be
increasing. Even though I live in Victoria, I can here the planes and it creates arumbling
that I can feel as well. Please consider that the planes should not be flying over where
civilians live. Thank you
(b)(6)
2633

I am a resident of the Southern end of Lopez Island. I find the noise of the growlers to be
disruptive and at times upsetting. The EIS should study the following: A. Conduct
flights. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2634

I do not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that would base
Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. .Section 1500.14 of the Council on
(b)(6)
2635

I live on the Southern end of Lopez Island. The noise from the growlers is very disruptive.
The Navy should be implementing immediate noise mitigations to reduce the noise
impacts of Growler training flights on citizens throughout the region including San Juan
County. In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Council on
this section agencies shall: ... (f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not already
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). (Note, it was published that there would be no
flights between Christmas and New Years, but there were several on the 29th and 30th.)
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2636

We moved here because of the beauty and the quiet. We recent purchased our house
only to find the Growlers disrupting our life in San Juan County. We did not know about
the intrusive noise from NASWI. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states,
"...the islands are places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic growth ... which
recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine and isolated nature of the
islands." The quiet and pristine nature of the islands with its marine protected areas,
impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Sincerely
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2637
,
I am very concerned about the environmental impact of naval testing on the Olympic
Peninsula and the West Coast and Demand Navy Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Growler
(b)(6)
2638
,
Past studies are insufficient. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise
(b)(6)
2639
,
in place for all Growler activity.
(b)(6)
2640
,
TThe EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children. Parents,
and Lopez Village.
(b)(6)
2641
,
(b)(6)
2642
,
(b)(6)
2643
,
We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just because they are higher in cost
or not as efficient. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases
(b)(6)
2644
,
(b)(6)
2645
,
Assessments. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan,
Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties.
(b)(6)
2646
Anacortes, WA 98221
I am concerned with the expansion of the number of growler jets to include even more of
these jets that will be used to generate ever more noise in the flight patterns that fly over
our house on Guemes Island with their ensuing noise pollution. Please do not expand
this base with additional Growlers.
(b)(6)
2647

I support the increase in air support at Widbey Island NAS, WA a am sick over the
protests against the " growlers". I venture to say that these protesters never served their
country or have been to a VA Hospital and seen the real sacrifices made by valiant men
for our safety. Ignore them !
(b)(6)
2648
Vancouver, V6P 6S3

1. Past Analysis Insufficient For decades studies of airport noise have used the
including San Juan County.
(b)(6)
2649
I attended the open house scoping meeting in Coupeville. I found the personnel proving
information to be open and forthcoming and knowledgeable in answering my questions.
In reply to questions regarding establishing noise contour data I was told that the noise
contours were established solely by computer simulation with no actual measurements to
validate the simulation input data and that average time value data is used. While the
computer simulation program used may be nationally recognized and have a history of
use in previous noise contour predictions I question the lack of actual supporting spot
data measurements to validate the simulation models, particularly due to the cold salt
water/land interface which features so prominently in the flight path areas of particular
concern. Producing a noise simulation with no actual correlated noise measurements
doesn't stand up to examination. I question that the simulation model used has sufficient
fidelity to accurately model the unique water/land/temperature effects occurring in the
OLF pattern and approach paths and would request that you give serious consideration
to add the task of taking actual spot measurements to validate your simulation results.
Those of us with an Engineering/Science background living in the area will be more
inclined to believe the results of your simulations with actual correlated data. You are
probably aware that property owners in the area are taking noise and other relevant data
when flying occurs at the OLF. measurements
(b)(6)
2650
, WA 98382
My name is (b)(6)
, a resident of Sequim, Washington, and I have reviewed the
Purpose and Need stated in the above two documents, and submit the following scoping
requests. Olympic Peninsula. Comment #1 1. After thoroughly reviewing the NWTRC EIS
and the NWTT EIS and its new supplement, I have concluded that there has been no real
study of the environmental impacts of the Growlers on the area of the Navys proposed
Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range, nor on the area between the EWR and
Whidbey Island. Your proposed EIS for the Growler Airfield Operations is just that a
study of the impacts of the Growlers on the area around the Whidbey Island airfields.
There is no good reason to so limit the EIS. The effects of the new Growlers must be
studied in all the areas in which they will be operating including the areas on the
Olympic Peninsula. Under the 1988 Master Agreement between the DOD and the DOA,
the Navy needs to prove that there is no suitable and available alternative on other DOD
lands for the EWR. This should be especially true when the EWR and the Growlers will
destroy the pristine nature of the Olympic National Park and the Olympic National Forest.
(b)(6)
2651

To: EA-18G EIS Project Manager 1/4/2015 We recently attended one of the latest Open
House Scoping Meetings held at Coupeville High School on October 28, 2014. We also
attended the earlier meeting at the Anacortes High School. To our great disappointment,
at the most recent meeting, we learned that the Navy was considering adding yet more
Growler aircraft than previously mentioned in the earlier meeting. This only made us feel
like our input has no real impact on your decisions. We cannot stress enough how much
the noise level that these aircraft produce, which is far more than the Navy implies,
adversely affects the quality of life in the area where we have lived for the past 25 years.
The noise from the growlers has become unbearable to the point that we are considering
selling the house we love. We sincerely hope that the comments generated from the
Scoping Meetings by the residents impacted by the noise of the growlers weighs heavily
in your decision on the option you choose. Rather than reiterate our concerns from the
initial comment period, we are attaching that letter for your viewing. See below. Sincerely
(b)(6)
Mount Vernon, WA 98273 To: EA-18G EIS Project
Manager We recently attended the last of three Open House Scoping Meetings in
Anacortes, Washington, for the upcoming Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
concerning the proposed expansion of the EA-18 Growler Operations at Navel Air Station
Whidbey Island. We found the staff manning the stations to be mostly friendly and well
prepared, as could be expected. Although our concerns were listened to, we came away
feeling that no matter what concerns were expressed by the attendees, the Navy was
going to go through with the proposed expansion. We live to the East of Ault Field directly
in line of the training flights for Touch and Go landings. As the Growlers fly over us they
are low and slow on their approach to Ault Field. As one of the pilots at the open house
pointed out to us, we live in one of the maximum noise areas for these flights because of
the flight corrections taking place in that space. We have owned our property here on the
North Fork of the Skagit River for almost 23 years. During that time we have definitely
noticed a big increase in flying and noise levels in our area. We love living here most of
the time. The only negative to that, and it is a huge negative, is the noise levels we are
exposed to when the older Prowlers and more lately the Growlers fly over. As stated in
the recent scoping meeting pamphlet "the Navy identified the Growler as quieter because
scientific measurements indicated that the Growler emits less sound than the Prowler
during most flight profiles. Noise levels vary depending on where you are in the flight
pattern. The comprehensive noise study conducted for the 2012 EA acknowledged that
the Growler is louder during arrival than the Prowler." Unfortunately, as far as our
neighborhood is concerned, given that we are on the arrival path of the Growler, we
experience a much louder noise level than the average level reported in your study. At
times it is simply unbearable to be outside and not much better in the house. We can feel
the house and windows shake as the planes pass over. We have to plug our ears as the
planes fly over. This is no exaggeration. We have observed the wildlife and domestic
animals cower and try to get away from the deafening level of jet noise. Conversation,
talking on the phone, listening to or playing music or watching TV is impossible . My wife
is a medical provider and is unable to consult with other providers or her patients when
the need arises when she is at home during periods of flight training exercises. Just a few
months ago we had to spend over $2000 for hearing aids for my wife at the age of 61.
She had to purchase a $400 amplified stethoscope so that she could continue to work in
her family practice clinic. Our guess was the jet noise played a part in that loss. At the
open house we had a conversation with the folks studying noise levels. They informed us
that the average decibel readings, over a 24 hour period, were done using simulations
and computer modeling. We don't feel that these models are accurately able to measure
the real time maximum sound level experienced in our neighborhood. We know that
training is essential. Before any decisions are made, we would urge you to use actual
field measurements in the affected areas of the noise level readings during different
phases of flying. It is our hope that the navy will consider the concerns of all its
neighbors, environmental agencies, and health organizations and not just add more
planes and flights because it is convenient and provides for the economy of the area
around the base. We also hope that all alternatives will be looked at including relocating
training to less populated areas. Sincerely (b)(6)
Mount
Vernon, WA 98273
2651
(b)(6)
2652
, WA 94960
My name is (b)(6)
requests. Comment #2. The continued expansion of the Growler fleet and the proposal to
create an EWR on the Olympic Peninsula appears to be mission-creep. The Navys
purpose (for both electronic warfare training and the Growler flights associated with it) as
expressed in both the NWTRC EIS and the NWTT EIS, comes down to MILITARY
PROTECTION. Explain SPECIFICALLY what is the threat? Is the threat present, real and
imminent, or is it a politically convenient projection (as in the case of Vietnam,
Afghanistan and Iraq wars). If there is no present, real and imminent threat, how can the
Navys protection purpose OVERRIDE the purposes of the US Forest Service and the
National Park Service, where Pacific Beach MOA is located? The mission of the Forest
Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nations forests and
grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The mission of the
National Parks Service is: to preserve, protect, and share the history of this land and its
people. These agencies serve the people much more directly than the Navy does.
Explain how your introduction of Growler noise, disturbance, and threat to Peninsulas
people, wildlife, and habitat is justified, given that you are compromising the mission of
two other federal agencies who protect the ecological health of our nation.
(b)(6)
2653
, WA 98382
My name is Judith Parker, a resident of Sequim, Washington, and I have reviewed the
requests. Comment #3. While you are expanding your EIS to include all the areas in
which the Growlers will be operating, please conduct an ANONYMOUS survey of the
employees of the Forest Service and Park Service for the area you are co-opting, so that
ALL employees can express support for or criticism of the introduction of electronic
warfare testing and Growlers to their territory and to their professional assignment. This
would greatly increase the likelihood of a meaningful study, and not just a study to justify
a desired, political result.
(b)(6)
2654
, WA 98382
NWTRC & NWTT EIS's and submit the following scoping requests. Comment #4. As a
vague justification in the NWTRC and NWTT EISs for using Pacific Beach as an
electronic warfare training site, and as a vague justification for the proposed EWR, you
mention fuel costs and efficiency. You also express a concern for the convenience and
cohesion of military families in the area. In an expanded EIS as suggested above, please
explain specifically why Navy fuel costs and family concerns are more important than the
Peninsulas tourism industry, which Growler fly-overs will most certainly damage. Explain
specifically why your families and your finances are more important than civilian families
and civilian finances on the Olympic Peninsula. Do a real economic impact analysis of
growlers on the Peninsula.
(b)(6)
2655
, WA 98382
NWTRC & NWTT EIS's, and submit the following scoping requests. Comment #5. The
EWR Environmental Assessment states that All of the EW training activities and
locations that would be associated with the implementation of the Pacific Northwest EW
Range were analyzed in the NWTRC EIS/OEIS. The only specific justification given for
the Pacific Beach site appears briefly (in one sentence) in the NWTRC 2.6.2.1,
discussing antenna height limitations and the earths curvature. There is nothing about
the proposed EWR mobile emitter sites, and there is nothing about the impacts of the
Growlers training over those mobile emitter sites. With the exception of a single
paragraph on murrelets, found in the more recent NWTT (3.6.2.4.1) not in the NWTRC ,
the quoted statement appears to be untrue. This being the case, the impacts of the new
Growlers, as well as the impacts of the existing Growlers and other aircraft that would
use the EWR, on both the area of the proposed EWR, and the area between the
proposed EWR and Whidbey Island, must be considered in the proposed EIS. Thus, if
there are 15 emitter truck sites proposed, the Navy must study each of those sites and
the environmental impacts from each one. The Navy is also obligated to identify all of the
flight paths and the biological and environmental impacts upon each of those flight paths
as well as the impact of interaction between the sites and fly-over growlers operating
simultaneously.
(b)(6)
2656
, WA 98382
NWTRC and NWTT EISs, and submit the following scoping requests. Comment #6:
Explain to the public who is responsible in the case of environmental disasters caused by
the Navy, e.g., fuel leaks, growler crashes. Who pays? The tax payers? If Navy error or
growler accidents impact the national parks or forests, what remediation does the Navy
provide?
(b)(6)
2657
, WA 98382
My name is (b)(6)
NWTRC and NWTT EISs, and submit the following scoping requests. Comment #7
Explain how violations of sound limits, destruction of habitat or other malfeasance that
might arise with Growlers would be handled by the Navy. Explain what agencies (besides
yourselves, the Navy) monitor compliance. Give examples of how the Navy responds to
civilian complaints. To whom do citizens effectively lodge complaints? Give examples of
penalties from the past. Who disciplines YOU?
(b)(6)
2658
langley, WA 98260
we need the military to stop yearning for more growlers & deal with the people
underneath them, those of us on the ground & trembling from the beyond reason noise
generated by warfare games & training. please come to your senses & include the care
of families, old & young, in your ktraining plans!
(b)(6)
2659
, WA 98382
I have just sent you seven comments, based on reading of the NWTRC (2010 EIS) and
the NWTT (2014) EIS. I reviewed them because your 8/1 EA alleges that you cover
environmental impacts omitted in the EA in the EIS's. My point is that you have not done
environmental analysis sufficient to fulfill NEPA. I believe you have been deceptive in this
regard. The work has not been done.
(b)(6)
2660
, WA 98382
My name is (b)(6)
NWTRC and NWTT EISs, and submit the following scoping requests. Comment # 7
Explore the economic impact of regular growler fly-overs on our tourism. This at the least
means examining the loss of visitor fees to the Park, income for restaurants and lodging,
and loss of state and local sales tax. The Peninsula is not wealthy, it has limited
resources for either employment opportunities or economic export or exchange. I can find
no specific discussion of economic impacts for the Peninsula in your documents. There
are very broad, even careless and off-point, generalizations which do nothing to
communicate the economic threats to the Peninsula in particular: Examples below
(NWTRC): ES 1.8.2 Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity
The Proposed Action would result in both short-term and long-term environmental effects.
However, the Proposed Action would not be expected to result in any impacts that would
reduce environmental productivity, permanently narrow the range of beneficial uses of
the environment, or pose long-term risks to health, safety or the general welfare of the
public. The Navy is committed to sustainable range management, including co-use of the
NWTRC with the general public and commercial interests to the extent practicable
consistent with accomplishment of the Navy mission and in compliance with applicable
law. This commitment to co-use enhances the long-term productivity of the NWTRC. ES
1.8.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources For the alternatives including
the Proposed Action, most resource commitments are neither irreversible nor
irretrievable. Most impacts are short-term and temporary. However, implementation of the
Proposed Action would require the use of fuels by aircraft, ships, and ground-based
vehicles. Total fuel consumption would increase and this nonrenewable resource would
be considered irreversibly lost.
(b)(6)
2661
Santa fe
SANTA FE, NM 87592
I represent 95 healthcare professionals, including all branches of medicine, whose
backgrounds inform us that this is a deadly project for the citizens of your area, as well as
the wild life and land. We have been threatened with a similar attack in New Mexico and
question why the military is targeting peaceful rural communities with War Games that
will leave children deaf, adults injured, and wildlife and natural environments destroyed. A
NEW EIS IS NEEDED The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise
in place for all Growler activity. The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler
Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A
extent of this problem. An Alternative Schedule that removes FCLP and CCA practice
from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied.
(b)(6)
2662
Santa fe
SANTA FE, NM 87592
will leave children deaf, adults injured, and wildlife destroyed. We are very concerned that
there are no alternatives that base the Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey
Island. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires that
Agencies shall (a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives . We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just because they
are higher in cost or not as efficient. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more
alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. At a
timelines for completion. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island should
be modified to minimize routes over populated areas including the south end of Lopez
Island to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler training flights over populated areas
including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c) Afterburners should
not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. d) A Ground Run-up
training engine run-ups and testing. e) Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction
measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. f) Notify citizens
in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield including Field Carrier
Landing Practice (FCLP), Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
(b)(6)
2663
Santa fe
SANTA FE, NM 87592
will leave children deaf, adults injured, and wildlife destroyed. The 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments (EAs) are deficient in the following areas as noted in
numerous comments: Analysis Human health consequences Alternatives Mitigation
Economic consequences This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and
should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005 and
2012 Environmental Assessments. The EIS should address economic impact
(b)(6)
2664

we understand the need for the flights and how that effects readiness. you could say our
ears are sympathetic. we believe JFK words "ask not what your country can do for you,
but what you can do for your country."
(b)(6)
2665
Greenbnak, WA 98253
To the EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager: I am a resident of Island County and have
lived in south central town of Greenbank, Washington since 1993. According to the map
in the document Figure 3-3 Existing 2003 DNL Noise Contours for Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville, Greenbank is not in the noise zone. However, we are affected. The noise and
fly-overs from the Growlers has exceeded everything we have experienced in our 20
years here. The serene life here is being degraded by the extreme loud noise and
intrusion of the Growlers into our lives. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler
sound measurements in the southern portion of Whidbey Island over a one-month period.
B. Include C-Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. C. The EIS
throughout the impacted areas including all of Island County. D. Sound measurement
and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or the Navy should commit in the
flights. Thank you. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2666

I am a resident of Lopez Island and property owner since 1978. I live on the south end of
Lopez above Jones Bay, near Richardson. I work at home and am profoundly upset by
the constant roar, vibration, low frequency rumble, and startlingly abrupt onset of jet noise
from Whidbey Island. I request that the Navy enhance its analysis of Growler
Environmental Assessments to include the following: 1. Conduct continuous sound
measurements in the southern portion of San Juan County over a one-month period
when jets are active. 2. Include C-weighted sound measurements and analysis in the
EIS, in order to measure the exceptionally disturbing low frequency spectrum that causes
the most constant negative impact on human health. 3. Include in the EIS analysis
supplemental noise measurements including Sound Exposure Level and Peak Sound
Level, and measure this against the VERY LOW BACKGROUND NOISE LEVEL that
identifies the southern part of San Juan County. 4. Include in the Sound Measurement
and Analysis all information related to the use of afterburners during takeoff and training
flights, as this contributes dramatically to the startle response experienced by all
residents of southern San Juan County.
(b)(6)
2667
,
I would like the scope of the EIS to include studies of the impact from the Growler Airfield
Ops at NAS Whidbey Island on wildlife and fauna. This should not only take into
consideration the "permanent" wildlife but the migrating animals passing through this
area at certain times. Thank you for your consideration. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2668
Greenbnak, WA 98253
Health Effects Related to Startle Reaction from Growler Training: I live in Greenbank
Washington in south central Whidbey Island and have since 1993. In addition to working
from home, I have clients who live north of here in Coupeville and Oak Harbor. I am a
landscape designer. I had four clients in the active fly zones this past year (2014): three
in Coupeville and one in Oak Harbor. In each case, I was wearing heavy-duty protective
ear-plugs during fly times and had to take cover inside or in a vehicle for added
protection. The noise from the Growlers was so extreme I felt it in my heart and in my
nervous system. My heartbeat actually palpated heavily in my chest. I felt my adrenaline
kick in. My blood pressure soared. This frightened me. I phoned NAS and finally phoned
hospital to voice my concern, as there was only a recording on the NAS line. The noise
was unbearable. (even the NAS operator said he moved from Oak Harbor to get relief
from the loud noise from NAS.) I also tried to schedule my work times on days when
there were no flights scheduled and found this unreliable, as sometimes the planes flew
non-posted. (that I could find.) I am also an active musician and graphic artist. When the
planes are flying and can be heard in my Greenbank studio, (with the doors and windows
closed) the creative flow of ideas and peace of mind is interrupted. It is difficult to
proceed. This affects my income and health. The Growlers are definitely affecting my
health. My Universal need for health, safety and peace is not being recognized.
Medical surveys should be conducted on the impacted populations including Island
County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2669
Greenbank, WA 98253
Health Effects Related to Loss of Control I live on the east side of Whidbey Island in
Greenbank and have lived here for over 20 years. We are not in the fly zone of OLF
according to your maps, however, we experience the noise and vibrations from
over-flights as echoed through the air and off of the sea from the Growlers. The
operations at OLF are degrading the peace and quiet of the island. When the jets are
flying the noise is often so intense that conversation and work stops. Many times I must
retreat indoors or into a car for protection, even with construction grade ear plugs in. This
is especially true on my exterior work sites as a landscape designer and installer in Oak
Harbor and Coupeville. NAS Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of training
This severely impacts the quality of life, our use of property, our leisure time activities and
our health. Surveys show that loss of control over ones life is one of the most disturbing
effects of low level military over flights and/or sonic booms on rural Americans.
Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA).
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2670

I am a resident of Lopez Island, WA, and have owned this property since 1978. I am
located on the southern part of Lopez Island above Jones Bay, near Richardson. I work
at home as a writer, and am profoundly affected by the constant roar, rattle, vibration,
low-level rumble and abrupt bursts of exceptionally loud sounds from jets at Whidbey
Island, day and night. I am especially concerned about the lack of attention to the health
affects of the extreme startle reaction to the sudden onset of loud roaring and rumbling
emanating from operations on and from Ault Field. The extreme reactions include
nervous, hormonal and vascular changes. I experience these every single time the abrupt
roaring occurs, which is constant during all operations. This produces a feeling of
alertness to danger, the exact same feeling produced by the abrupt onset of a severe
earthquake, which I have experienced while trapped in a disintegrating brick building
during an 8.8 earthquake. The roar is as frightening as that of a forest fire. It is as intense
as hurricane winds; in fact just last night during a severe windstorm the abrupt onset of
jet roaring caused me to believe a tree had fallen on my roof overhead. This is a terrible
way to live on what was once a quiet, rural island. I request that Medical surveys be
carried out throughout the impacted populations, including San Juan County, to address
the dangerous health effects of the above described startle reactions.
(b)(6)
2671
Anacortes, WA 98221
We would like to make a comment about the Growler noise that we incur on a regular
basis. What currently exists is terrible. We understand the Navy is proposing an increase
in the number of jets and associated sorties. We object to the late night flying over our
house, the low flying with gear down and engines power increased. We object to the
flying over populated area. We object because it is very noisy, one can not carry on a
conversation, in an enclosed home, when the planes fly over. They are incredibly noisy
and disturbing to the peace and serenity of the Skagit valley. 1. We live in Skagit Valley,
and when we bought our home we did sign a paper that said something to the effect that
we are aware of the agriculture peculiarities of the Skagit Valley and will abide by local
ordinances. We did not sign anything that mentioned Whidbey Island Growler noise. This
is an infringement on my right to peace and quality of life. 2. We live in a valley
surrounding Campbell Lake. The noise echoes off the different mountain sides, Mt Erie,
Sharps Hill etc. This area should be surveyed for noise. 3. We all have to live and
coincide in this area. Yes, the Navy has their base, but we have our homes, a place
where we are supposed to find peace security and serenity. It is difficult to find those
things when the jets are fly overhead, rattling the windows at 11:00pm at night. I feel like
the Navy is the big 1000 pound gorilla, they do this because they can. I never signed up
for this and I do not like it. I think would prefer that the Navy practice what they need to
practice on their ships that we provide, out at sea and aweay from populated areas. I
understand that this is not always possible. 4. Washington DOT is concerned about traffic
noise of interstates going through neighborhoods. But they somehow the state does not
care about Jet Noise from Whidbey Naval Air Station. I am not sure why. Please stop the
noise. Go practice on the boats that we have purchased for you. You have a vast ocean
for which to play. Go play somewhere else.
(b)(6)
2672

I am a resident of Lopez Island, residing on the southern end of the island above Jones
Bay near Richardson. I have owned this property since 1978. I work at home as a writer
and am profoundly affected by the constant roar, rumble, vibration and abrupt onset of jet
noise from the Growler operations at Whidbey Island. I am upset by the unpredictability of
overflights, engine testing in particular, and training operations that bring terrible levels of
jet noise into my work and sleep space at any time of day or night. I request that the EIS
address this significant psychological issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include
notifying all citizens in the affected areas, including southern San Juan County, of all
Growler training operations at either airfield, including Field Carrier Landing Practice and
Controlled Carrier Approaches.
(b)(6)
2673
Greenbank, WA 98253
Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children: I live and work near the ball fields on Whidbey
Island which are adjacent to OLF. The Growlers Touch and Go flights this past year, with
their increased noise, caused children to scream, cover their ears and fall to the ground.
Audiologist reports indicate that there is zero tolerance for hearing loss in this close
proximity to the Growlers. How can we be responsible as parents, community members,
citizens and tax-payers, for practices and equipment that are harming our children?
Growler traffic is definitely affecting my life. What used to be a quiet peaceful place to live
now regularly is filled with the sounds of a war zone. Ear protection is inadequate. My
body vibrates. My mood darkens. I am concerned about the effects on the children at our
school and our preschool. Research shows that children can be very distressed over
military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror, panic, screaming,
biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. We have a duty to our children to provide
them with a suitable place to live, to learn and play. The Navy already has a testing area
for War Games in Idaho. I imagine the population there is not as concentrated as it is
here in the Pacific Northwest. Please do your testing in an area that is not impacted by
the noise and pollution of the Growlers, especially not in the pristine quiet forest of the
Olympic National Park and the islands. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2674

I am a resident of Lopez Island, WA, living full time in the southern part of the island
above Jones Bay, near Richardson. I am not only profoundly affected by the constant
roar, rumble, vibration, rattling and abrupt onset of jet noise from operations at Whidbey
Island military fields, but concerned for the health and well being of the current generation
of children on Lopez who are subjected to this noise. I worked the past year as a
volunteer with Lopez School kindergarten through third graders, where these children are
expressing an elevated sense of loss of control and anxiety. No surveys or tests have
ever been done to compare the responses of children prior to the onset of Growler
operations to those currently experiencing the noise, roar, rumble, vibration and
unexpected abrupt onset of intense noise. I request that the EIS SPECIFICALLY address
the issue of Growler noise on children, through interviews with children, parents,
teachers, school aides, and medical/psychotherapy personnel. Mitigation should included
shifting flight patterns to avoid noise impact on all of Lopez Island.
(b)(6)
2675
Lopez Is., WA 98261

The flyovers are way too loud, I understand the need for training, but another flight path
needs to be explored.
(b)(6)
2676

I am a resident of Lopez Island and have owned my property since 1978. I live at the
southern end of the island, above Jones Bay, near Richardson. I work at home as a
writer and am subject to work completion and submission deadlines on a regular basis.
My comment concerns the effect of Growler jet noise impacting my ability to work or
sleep during jet operations from 8 PM to 1 AM, which I experience regularly. When the
frightening low frequency noise is measured, sound levels rise to 100 dBC during this
period, rattling windows and doors, causing vibration inside my house that moves items
on shelves and seems to permeate the very walls. This continuous threatening-sounding
noise prevents me from falling asleep or from completing writing projects. As a result of
lost sleep, my Blood Glucose fasting measurements have increased steadily, as has my
blood pressure and anxiety. I request that the EIS address sleep disturbance among
residents of the study area, including southern San Juan County, through surveys,
interviews and documentation. Mitigation should include scheduling NO PRACTICE OR
FLIGHTS between 2000 and 0800 Hours.
(b)(6)
2677

I am a resident of Lopez Island, living in the southern area of the island above Jones Bay,
near Richardson. I am profoundly affected during my work hours, rest hours, and sleep
hours by the constant astonishingly loud roar, rumble, vibration and abrupt onset of jet
noise emanating from Growler operations at Whidbey Island. It has come to my attention
that the Proposed Action Statement of the EIS offers NO alternatives that base these
terrible disturbing Growler operations at any other location than Whidbey Island. This is
completely unthinkable and illustrates the total lack of regard the Navy has for the
citizens whose tax dollars support it. I request that the EIS fully evaluate one or MORE
alternatives for proposed action that would base the Growlers at a location surrounded by
NO human population, instead of in the settled rural communities that have been in place
here since the 1800s.
(b)(6)
2678
Greenbank, WA 98253
Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance: I have enjoyed living on Whidbey Island since
1993. One of the blessings of living here has been the peaceful nights and being able to
hear the sea life, the wind, the birds and all the night sounds. The Growlers have
destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise between 8pm and 12 midnight, even
though Greenbank is not in the flight zone. Research shows that the indoor threshold for
falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. The noise disrupts my sleep. Levels from Growlers at OLF
range from 57 80 dBA. I have to close my windows to keep the noise out. That means I
also get hot and do not get the fresh air. Averaging noise over a year is useless when
youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not average sound. I feel that living with the sleep
disruptions from the Growlers is affecting my health. References: LeVere T, Morlock G,
Hart, F: Waking Performance Decrements Following Minimal Sleep Description: The
Effects of Habituation during Sleep, Physiological Psychology, 3:147-174, 1975. Kryter,
Ran D., Analysis of Laboratory and Field Data on Awakening from Noise, 1988. Lukas,
J., Measures of Noise Level: Their Relative Accuracy In Predicting Objective and
Subjective Responses to Noise During Sleep. EPA-600/1-77-0 10, U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Feb. 1977. Griefahn, Barbara. Research on Nose-Disturbed Sleep since 1973.
In Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem.
ASHA Report No. 10, April 1980. Gniefahn, B Muzet, A: Noise Induced Sleep
Disturbances and Their Effects on Health. Institut Feur Arbeits und Sozialmedizin,
Universitaet Mainz, West Germany and Centre dEtudes Bioclimatiques due CNRS,
France. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the study
area including Island County should document the extent of this problem. An alternative
that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault field and OLF between 2000 and 0800
hours should be developed, studied and implemented. Thank you. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2679
Greenbank, WA 98253
Alternatives My husband and I moved to Greenbank on Whidbey Island in 1993 after our
camping experiences on this majestic peaceful island in 1990. The jets were not that
much of a problem to us with the older model until the Growlers arrived. Now I
experience them at home while working or relaxing, and on job sites that I work on in
Coupeville and Oak Harbor. The noise is intrusive. At night when the island used to be
quiet blasting and roaring can be heard until late at night. There are alternative places to
conduct your flights. I do not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that
negatively impacting Island County and the whole region. Alternatives should not be
Whidbey Island. Thank you. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2680
Greenbank, WA 98253
Mitigation Our family has lived on Whidbey Island for over 20 years. We are active to the
health,peace and beauty of this island we call home. The noise from the Growlers is
affecting everyone: children, adults, visitors, even animals! The Navy should be
implementing immediate noise mitigations to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training
flights on citizens throughout the region including Island and San Juan Counties. In
proposed action or alternatives. I believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments incorrectly determined that there was no adverse noise impact from the
introduction of the Growlers. Therefore it was inappropriate not to evaluate noise
mitigation. At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully considered. All
selected mitigation measures should be included in the Record of Decision (ROD) along
with timelines for completion. Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island
(map on page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be modified to minimize routes over
populated areas, including the island, to the greatest extent possible. Growler training
flights over populated areas including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet
elevation. Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget
Sound. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used for noise
suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. Test, acquire and
Growlers. Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield
(CCA). Thank you. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2681

I am a resident of Lopez Island, living in the southern area of the island above Jones Bay,
just northeast of Richardson. I have been and continue to be profoundly affected by the
constant roar, rumble, vibration and abrupt onset of Growler jet operations emanating
from Whidbey Island. I believe strongly that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments INCORRECTLY determined that there was no adverse noise impact from
the Growler operations. I experience them daily. I request that ALL mitigation measures,
including any of those listed below, be included in the Record of Decision along with
timelines for completion: 1. Growler training flight paths from NAS Whidbey should be
modified to eliminate flights over any part of Lopez Island. 2. Growler training flights over
San Juan County should be restricted to over 3,000 feet above ground level. 3.
Afterburners should not be used on any Growler training flights over North Puget
Sound/Salish Sea. 4. A Ground Run-up Enclosure MUST be installed and used for noise
suppression during ALL Growler training engine run-ups and testing. 5. Noise Reduction
measures designed for General Electric F414 engines used in the Growlers must be
tested, acquired and deployed for use on those engines in the Growlers. 6. All citizens in
the affected noise impact area should be notified in advance of all Growler training
operations at either airfield on Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2682
Greenbank, WA 98253
Economic impacts We moved to Whidbey Island in 1993 to manage Meerkerk Gardens,
Whidbey Islands peaceful woodland garden a world-renowned botanical garden. This
Garden and Forest preserve are sought after by the public because of because of their
beauty, of being a place for solace and reflection, and tourism dollars, vital to the local
economy. The Growlers are changing the quality of life in Island County. My husband and
I are now at a point where we are considering purchasing a home to live in for the rest.
We are concerned about buying property here! The intrusive noise from NASWI is a real
issue. Luckily, at this time, we might be able to avoid the noise by moving to the south
end of the island. Yet that is no guarantee. Technically, Greenbank is not in the flight
zone, yet we are affected by the noise here and at our work places in Coupeville and Oak
Harbor. I believe that the Growlers and NAS expansion in Island and San Juan Counties
is counter to their comprehensive plans. I. OVERVIEW ISLAND COUNTY VISION
STATEMENT Allure of the County. Island Countys natural beauty and unique character
are powerful magnetsThe overall goals seek to preserve the historic rural economy and
character, protect the environment, conserve critical areas,Rural character is one of
Island Countys most valued assets, providing diversity, a sense of community, and the
quality of life desired by many island residents. Longtime residents and newcomers agree
that a slow-paced, rural character has attracted and kept them here. Rural lifestyles
provide privacy and individuality, allow people to set their own pace, bring people closer
to nature and their neighbors, and offer the opportunity for family development in a safe
environment. Though it is hard to describe in words, rural character is a crucial
element of the Countys economy and culture and one of the few things virtually all
residents agree is essential to the quality of life here. Rural character not only makes
people feel good about the place where they live and provides a cultural connection to
the Countys past it also has a very clear dollars-and-cents benefit. Rural character
(which would not exist without the Countys farms and forests) is the basis for the
Countys important tourist industry. It is also a magnet for retirees and their dollars, as
well as for businesses that consider locating here to provide a higher quality of life for
their employees. "...the islands are places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic
growth which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine and isolated
nature of the islands." The quiet and pristine nature of the islands with its marine
protected areas, National Monuments and National Historical Parks attracts organic
agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists, hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer residents and
retirees. We have talked to visitors who have experienced the jet noise and have stated
that they will never return. Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone
and Island Counties. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2683

I am a resident of Lopez Island, residing full time on the southern extent of the island,
above Jones Bay which opens southeast, near Richardson. I have owned this property
since 1978. The attraction of Lopez Island as well as the other islands of San Juan
County has always been its rural, quiet, isolated, protected nature and its status as
predominately a National Monument with several National and State Parks, County rural
recreation areas, Scenic Byways, low-impact agriculture, and quiet recreational
opportunities for families, visitors and retirees. This defining nature of our home has been
devastated by the intrusion of roaring, rumbling, vibration-causing, and abrupt
exceptionally loud noise caused by the new and increasing Growler operations at
neighboring Whidbey Island installations. With the loss of the defining nature of our home
comes the loss of visitors and their portion of island income, the collapse of property
values for homes in the southern part of the county, and economic consequences for the
region brought on by the Navy's unwillingness to stop using the San Juan Islands and its
other neighbors as a no impact zone. I request that the EIS address economic impacts
throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties.
(b)(6)
2684
Greenbank, WA 98253
Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments: I have been following
(b)(6)
2685

I have owned property and resided on the southern end of Lopez Island since 1978. My
life has become profoundly impacted from the increased Growler operations on Whidbey
Island, which bring blasts of noise, roaring, rumbling, and vibration into my home day and
night. I believe the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments of Growler operations are
DEFICIENT in each of the following areas for which I have previously submitted
comments: ANALYSIS, HUMAN HEALTH, ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION, and
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. I request that the EIS conduct ALL ANALYSIS from the
beginning, and not rely on, or tier off, the analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005
and 2012 Environmental Assessments.
(b)(6)
2686
Nevada City, CA 95959

including San Juan County. 2. Health effects Startle Reaction from Growler training The
deficient in the following areas as noted in numerous comments: Analysis Human
health consequences Alternatives Mitigation Economic consequences This EIS
2686
(b)(6)
2687

NO MORE NOISE! Please. Thanks! (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2688

The noise intrusion that Growler Airfield Operations would cause is totally unacceptable
in this area. People visit Olympic National Park, a United Nations World Heritage site,
and live in the area, expecting a natural and tranquil experience. Impinging on this
experience would have many negative impacts -- to health, the fragile local economy and
ecosystem. Keep the noise where people don't expect quiet. No cost savings are worth
the damage that would be caused.
(b)(6)
2689

In addition to previous concerns stated about impacts of noise on a United Nations World
Heritage site, I want to express concern that ground based activities, covered in the
Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range EA, should be covered in this EIS. Nothing
has been provided to the public on impacts from fuel dumping over water, our
communities, or the Olympic National Forest or Olympic National Park. The Navy admits
that it does occur, primarily over the area to the west of the runways at Naval Air Station
Whidbey Island, but that it occurs at 8,000 feet and therefore the fuel "vaporizes before it
reaches the surface." Jet fuel is full of heavy metals and other toxic compounds, and,
news flash, gravity is the law. Perhaps the solvents may vaporize, but no information
exists on the effects of these toxic compounds that must eventually come down to the
surface. We have also not been told anything about the type of fuel used in Growler jets.
Another question to ask is: Has independent research been conducted, on effects of jet
fuel emissions or fuel dumping over the National Forest and National Park, or over
communities near where fuel is dumped?
(b)(6)
2690

Hello, I am writing in representation of my middle school class who is extremely opposed
for several reasons about the growlers, towers, and war experiments in Olympic National
Park. They all see the area as their backyard and use it regularly with their families for
hiking, camping, biking, and fishing. We also feel that the Forest Service's lack of
supporting short and long term impact of wildlife and possibly vegetation as well as
electromagnetic pollution is in conflict of interests re: the EIS. Please, don't let these kids
down! Dee Hammons, Sophia, Max, Anders, Jazmine, Noa, Tommy, Logan, Elias
Jefferson Community School Middle School Class
(b)(6)
2691

Issues to be studied for the Environmental Impact Statement for the EA-18G Growler
Airfield Operations at NAS Whidbey Island. Marion Huxtable I have lived in Port
Townsend facing Port Townsend Bay for ten years. The noise of Navy jets from the Navy
Air Station on Whidbey Island, especially those practicing landings at the Outlying Field
at Coupeville, has disrupted my enjoyment and use of my home and garden during this
time except for those few periods when the Navy stopped its training flights. I am a Board
member of Disability Awareness Starts Here (DASH), a group that advocates for
accessibility for all. Through this affiliation and also through the experience of living in an
area with many older people I have become aware of the large numbers of people with
hearing problems. By age 65 one in three people has a hearing problem. Noise is a
cause of hearing problems and also produces an effect by making conversation and
other activities more difficult. Tinnitus: neurally generated ringing or buzzing in the ear
that can be exacerbated by noise, affects millions of people. People with hyperacusis, a
condition of increased sensitivity to noise that makes sudden or high frequency sound
painful, find the noise of military jets is a significant problem. Older people are also more
likely to suffer high blood pressure and disorders such as Multiple Sclerosis that are
made worse by loud or sudden noise). The impact of noise on children is a major concern
as hearing damage from noise is irreversible and will affect children for the rest of their
lives. I propose several factors that should be evaluated in the Environmental Impact
Statement for the EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at the Naval Air Station on
Whidbey Island including the Outlying Field, and how these should be accurately
assessed. 1. A survey should be conducted to determine the impact of the noise of the
Growlers on the population and which residential areas are affected. Residents in
Coupeville, Port Townsend and the San Juan Islands should be asked about the impact
of the aircraft noise on specific aspects of their health and well-being, such as sleep,
stress and general quality of life. 2. An assessment of the cumulative impact of the
Growler training programs should be included as it is the accumulated impacts that
degrade the resources of the North Olympic Peninsula. The cumulative impact
assessment should include the increase of noise since operations first began on Whidbey
Island. The effect of Electromagnetic Warfare training operations on the Olympic
Peninsula should be included in the EIS as it directly connected to the proposal to
increase the number of Growlers operating at NAS Whidbey. The possibility of future
increases in training activities and numbers of aircraft should also be included. The
purpose of assessing cumulative impact is to give an accurate assessment of how the
total Navy operations affect the environment, the economy, and the health and well being
of residents. Assessing each of the Navy operations separately and failing to consider the
incremental increase of impacts over several years does not show the overall impact. 3.
Actual sound measurements at key locations (such as homes and farms) where humans
and animals are affected should be included. Simulated studies of noise are not sufficient
to measure the sound levels. The measurements should include noise of different
frequencies including the low frequencies that disturb many people and the high
frequencies that affect hearing, hyperacusis and tinnitus. The intensity of Peak Sound
Level (Lmax), the number of touch and go events, the number of days per year the
training will be conducted, the time of day of such events and the location of events that
are above 80 dB (likely to interfere with residents outdoor activities) should be included
in the assessment. 4. Health studies should be conducted that give a true evaluation of
the impact of jet noise on hearing, tinnitus, hyperacusis, blood pressure and other health
problems. The literature review that the Navy conducts on health effects of noise should
be published. 5. The impact of assigning more training operations to the OLF
(alternatives 2 and 4) should be evaluated, including stating the increased frequency of
intense noise events (with high SEL and Lmax) that seems likely with alternatives 2 and 4
(that add between 18 and 27 extra aircraft to the carrier squadrons). 6. Studies should be
conducted on the impact of jet noise on children, especially those living, playing and
attending school in the impacted area. 7. Studies should be conducted on the impact of
the noise from the OLF on sleep for those living in the affected areas, which include
Coupeville, Port Townsend and the San Juans. 8. The study should include information
about how the Navy will inform residents of dates when training can be expected. 9.
Mitigation measures should be evaluated for reducing the noise from the OLF. 10. The
impact of the noise on the economy of the affected area should be evaluated. The noise
impacts leisure activities such as sailing, hiking and gardening and this in turn reduces
the desirability of living and visiting the areas. Property values in the areas most affected
are reduced. 11. The impact on the historic value of Ebeys Landing National Historic
Reserve should be fully evaluated by experts familiar with the National Historic
Preservation Act and Section 106. Interested parties such as those who live in the
Reserve, Native American groups and Historic Preservation officers should conduct the
evaluation. 12. The safety of exercises at the OLF should be evaluated in light of the
proximity to residents homes and businesses, especially at the end of the OLF runway.
The number of Growler crashes or primary incidents per year should be included in the
EIS. 13. The EIS should consider the precedent that has been set by the Tokyo High
Court having recently ordered the government to suspend night-time flights and pay 4.04
billion yen in compensation for noise pollution from military aircraft (including Growlers)
suffered by 4,865 people living near U.S. Naval Air Facility Atsugi in Kanagawa
Prefecture. 14. The additional amount of greenhouse gases from training with the
additional Growler jets should be included in the EIS. Alternatives should be evaluated
that reduce the greenhouse gases emitted.
2691
(b)(6)
2692
Freeland, WA 98249
OLF had a legitimate use during WW 2 and due to the exigency of the war had
community support. The situation today is drastically different. The community support is
not there (with perhaps the exception of the gung-ho "patriots" who don't actually live in
the area and do not have to suffer the effects of OLF activity). The EA-18G aircraft is
FAR noisier than any of its predecessors. Training for touch and go landings is NOT
suited to the otherwise pastoral surroundings of OLF Coupeville. These activities need to
move to a more suitable remote location. These training exercises are a severe intrusion
to an otherwise tranquil area. They are a health hazard. They prevent people from
sleeping. They are inherently dangerous. They probably could be replaced by modern
flight-simulator training. They most certainly can be relocated to another location. I'm sure
with all the money that is squandered on military activities and hardware, this should be
easy to fund. If the United States Navy is the least bit interested in being a good neighbor
to the citizens of central and south Whidbey Island it will move these obnoxious
operations to a more appropriate location.
(b)(6)
2693
Anacortes, WA 98221
As a public health physician, I realize that high noise levels have detrimental effects on
health, including hearing loss, hypertension and sleep disturbance, to name a few. The
current growler flights are carried out during all hours of the day and night, and the noise
level on the ground generated by overhead flights exceeds 100 dB, levels associated
with adverse health effects. Current flights are occurring after 10 PM and earlier than 6
AM, leading to disrupted sleep which also has adverse health effects on many
individuals. Increasing the current squadron as well as flights would serve to compound
what is already a public health menace to the community. For the sake of your neighbors'
health and well being, I strongly advise against increasing the number of squadrons and
aircraft assigned to NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2694

Scoping Letter for # 1 Analysis: I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island since 1989.
In the last year noise and over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded
anything we have experienced in the last 35 years. All the reasons we have chosen to
live here are being degraded by the constant noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of
Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact area.
This is clearly false. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments
(EAs) was inadequate to support the findings. The Navy must enhance the analysis in
order to support proposed actions in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS
should study the following: A. Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern
portion of SJC over a one-month period. B. Include C-Weighted sound measurements
and analysis in the EIS. C. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise
and Lmax in 5 dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County.
D. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or the Navy
should commit in the mitigation section of the Record of Decision (ROD) to not use
afterburners in training flights. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island,
WA 98261 (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2695

Scoping letter for #2 Health Effects Related to Startle Reaction from Growler Training: I
live in the Center of Lopez Island and often work at home. We experience Growler noise
usually 5 days a week often starting at 8am and continuing until 9 -10 pm in the winter
and 12 pm 1 am in the summer. One of the most difficult aspects for me is the Startle
effect. We get sporadic blasts of noise throughout the day ranging from 75 113
decibels. I can feel my adrenalin kick in and my blood pressure rises. This constant noise
is definitely affecting my health. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and
Social Effects of Noise (pub 1115), National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island, WA 98261 (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2696

Scoping letter for #3 Health Effects Related to Loss of Control I live in the center of Lopez
Island. Over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations from Growlers and operation at Ault
Field are degrading many of the reasons we chose to live on the island. When the jets
are flying the noise is often so intense that conversation stops. I have had to stop
conversations at work with my employees since they can not hear what I am saying.
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of training operations for
Ault Field. As a consequence, residents never know if a blast of noise is going to be a
flights and/or sonic booms on rural Americans. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser
M: Psychophysiological Reaction to Noise as Modified by Personal Control over Noise
(FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2697

Scoping Letter for #4 Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children I live next door to the school
on Lopez Island. The jets didnt used to fly over the school and now they do. They also
routinely fly over the preschool in Lopez Village. Growler traffic over my home is definitely
affecting my life. What used to be a quiet peaceful place to live now regularly is filled with
the sounds of a war zone. Ear protection does nothing. My windows vibrate. My body
vibrates. I am concerned about the effects on the children at our school and our
preschool. Research shows that children can be very distressed over military jet over
flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror, panic, screaming, freezing in place,
Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island, WA 98261(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2698

Scoping Letter for #5 Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance I have enjoyed living on
Lopez Island for over 20 years. One of the wonders of living here has been the quiet
nights and being able to hear the waves, the sea lions, the wind and all the night sounds.
The Growlers have destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise between 8pm and
12 midnight. In the summer the noise can continue until 1am. Research shows that the
indoor threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Our noise journals show that indoor
and ear protection does not help. Its unthinkable that the Navy considers San Juan
County and Lopez Island a no significant impact noise area! Averaging noise over a
year is useless when youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not average sound. I feel that
living with the sleep disruptions from the Growlers is affecting my health. References:
LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking Performance Decrements Following Minimal Sleep
Description: The Effects of Habituation during Sleep, Physiological Psychology,
3:147-174, 1975. Kryter, Ran D., Analysis of Laboratory and Field Data on Awakening
from Noise, 1988. Lukas, J., Measures of Noise Level: Their Relative Accuracy In
Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise During Sleep. EPA-600/1-77-0
10, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Feb. 1977. Griefahn, Barbara. Research on
Nose-Disturbed Sleep since 1973. In Proceedings of the Third International Congress on
Noise as a Public Health Problem. ASHA Report No. 10, April 1980. Gniefahn, B Muzet,
A: Noise Induced Sleep Disturbances and Their Effects on Health. Institut Feur Arbeits
und Sozialmedizin, Universitaet Mainz, West Germany and Centre dEtudes
of the residents in the study area including San Juan County should document the extent
of this problem. An Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault field
between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2699

Scoping Letter for #6 Alternatives I have lived on Lopez Island for more than twenty
years. The jets from NASWI have not bothered me much until this last year. Now I
experience them all over the Island. If I want to walk on our new National Monument
lands at Iceberg Point they are the predominant sound - not birds or waves or sea lions. If
Im in the Village I experience them often with their deafening vibrations. Even at our ferry
landing at the north end their noise is not uncommon. At night when the island used to be
quiet the hours of blasting and roaring can be heard until late at night. I do not
understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that would base Growlers
somewhere other than NASWI. .Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality
all reasonable alternatives. The introduction of the Growler is negatively impacting San
Juan County and the whole region. Alternatives should not be dismissed just because
they are higher in cost or not as efficient. Adding any Growlers to an already significantly
bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2700

Scoping Letter for #7 Mitigation As a long time San Juan County resident (over 20 years)
I am now planning trips off island to experience quiet. This is ridiculous. The Navy should
(CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2701

Scoping Letter for #8 Economic impacts I moved to Lopez Island because of the beauty
and the quiet. The Growlers are changing the quality of life in San Juan County. We
would never have bought property here if we had experienced the intrusive noise from
NASWI. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of
peace.... We support a pattern of economic growth which recognizes the rural,
residential, quiet, agricultural, marine and isolated nature of the islands." The quiet and
pristine nature of the islands with its marine protected areas, National Monuments and
National Historical Parks attracts organic agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists, hikers,
kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. I have talked to visitors who have
experienced the jet noise and have stated that they will never return. Continuation of the
current level of jet noise, let alone increasing the number of jets, will discourage visitors
and reduce property values. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San
Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2702

Scoping Letter for #9 Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments I
have been following the EIS process for the past year. It appears that both the 2005 and
consequences, and plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and economic
impacts to the region. The low frequency noise which is the signature noise of the
Growler was not even considered. San Juan County was considered a no significant
2012 Environmental Assessments. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez
Island, WA 98261 (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2703

I have lived in Port Townsend, WA since 1987. About 5 years ago the Navy Jet noise
became much louder and flights have increased. Sometimes it is constant both during the
day and all night long, even in the summer when windows are open to sleep. When I go
to Whidbey Island for a day trip I sometimes have to turn around and go home because
the sound is insufferable there. I have cried being at Fort Casey camping and could not
get away from the sound of the Navy Growlers. It hurts! It has been documented to be
well over the limits for safe hearing, This is damaging to public safety and seriously
impacts our tourist destination reputation, which our livelihood depends on. Even out on
the Olympic Peninsula in our week long camping trips the growlers are an ever present
sound. To be hiking the wilderness and hear the jets flying over and over, repeated flights
along the same flight path seriously hampers the "wilderness" experience. It is not
appropriate to bring 36 new jets when the ones that you have already are way to much
for this densely populated area. Also these jets are going to be flying all around a
National Park which is one of the few ways of making money in this area. How long
before people say "I am never going back there". Please in the interest of public safety
and livelihood stop the addition of 36 new planes. We are already at the limit of what this
area can tolerate... And maybe you could find a way to lessen the noise the current jets
make? For our safety and well being? Thank you.
(b)(6)
2704

Scoping Letter for # 1 Analysis: I have lived on Lopez Island since 1983. In the last year
noise and over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything we have
experienced in the last 35 years. All the reasons we have chosen to live here are being
degraded by the constant noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The
Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact area. This is clearly
false. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was
support proposed actions in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS should
study the following: A. Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion
of SJC over a one-month period. B. Include C-Weighted sound measurements and
analysis in the EIS. C. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise
Lopez Island,
WA 98261 (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2705

Scoping letter for #2 Health Effects Related to Startle Reaction from Growler Training: I
live in the Center of Lopez Island and often work at home. We experience Growler noise
usually 5 days a week often starting at 8am and continuing until 9 -10 pm in the winter
and 12 pm 1 am in the summer. One of the most difficult aspects for me is the Startle
effect. We get sporadic blasts of noise throughout the day ranging from 75 113
decibels. I can feel my adrenalin kick in and my blood pressure rises. This constant noise
is definitely affecting my health. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2706

Scoping letter for #3 Health Effects Related to Loss of Control I live and work in the
center of Lopez Island. Over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations from Growlers and
operation at Ault Field are degrading many of the reasons we chose to live on the island.
When the jets are flying the noise is often so intense that conversation stops. I have had
to stop conversations at work with my employees since they can not hear what I am
saying. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of training
Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2707

Scoping Letter for #4 Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children I live next door to the school
on Lopez Island and work full time at the Lopez School. The jets didnt used to fly over
the school and now they do. They also routinely fly over the preschool in Lopez Village.
Growler traffic over my home and work is definitely affecting my life. What used to be a
quiet peaceful place to live and work now regularly is filled with the sounds of a war zone.
Ear protection does nothing. My windows vibrate. My body vibrates. I am concerned
about the effects on the children at our school and our preschool. Research shows that
children can be very distressed over military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may
include: terror, panic, screaming, freezing in place, palpitations, shaking, dizziness, bed
wetting, sleep disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure.
Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 3-8, 1989. The EIS should specifically
address the issue of Growler noise on children. Parents, teachers and children should be
questioned about behavioral responses to Growler noise. Mitigation should include
shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2708

Scoping Letter for #5 Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance I have enjoyed living on
Lopez Island for over 30 years. One of the wonders of living here has been the quiet
nights and being able to hear the waves, the sea lions, the wind and all the night sounds.
The Growlers have destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise between 8pm and
12 midnight. In the summer the noise can continue until 1am. Research shows that the
indoor threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Our noise journals show that indoor
and ear protection does not help. Its unthinkable that the Navy considers San Juan
County and Lopez Island a no significant impact noise area! Averaging noise over a
year is useless when youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not average sound. I feel that
living with the sleep disruptions from the Growlers is affecting my health. References:
(b)(6)
2709

Scoping Letter for #6 Alternatives I have lived on Lopez Island for over thirty years. The
jets from NASWI have not bothered me much until this last year. Now I experience them
all over the Island. If I want to walk on our new National Monument lands at Iceberg Point
they are the predominant sound - not birds or waves or sea lions. If Im in the Village I
experience them often with their deafening vibrations. At work (Lopez Island School), the
noise is deafening. Even at our ferry landing at the north end their noise is not
uncommon. At night when the island used to be quiet the hours of blasting and roaring
can be heard until late at night. I do not understand why this EIS does not include an
Alternative that would base Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. .Section 1500.14 of
efficient. Adding any Growlers to an already significantly affected area is unjustified. I
other than NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez
Island, WA 98261 (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2710

Scoping Letter for #7 Mitigation As a long time San Juan County resident (over 30 years)
I am now planning trips off island to experience quiet. This is ridiculous. The Navy should
(CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2711

Scoping Letter for #8 Economic impacts I moved to Lopez Island over 30 years ago
because of the beauty and the quiet. The Growlers are changing the quality of life in San
Juan County. We would never have bought property here if we had experienced the
intrusive noise from NASWI. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the
islands are places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic growth which
nature, cyclists, hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. I have talked to
visitors who have experienced the jet noise and have stated that they will never return.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2712

Scoping Letter for #9 Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments I
consequences, and plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and economic
impacts to the region. The low frequency noise which is the signature noise of the
Growler was not even considered. San Juan County was considered a no significant
Lopez
Island, WA 98261 (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2713
Nordland, WA 98358
It is my opinion that you're making a big mistake using some of the last pristine forests
near residential areas for military games. Take the planes to Idaho & train there where
your presence is wanted, then return to WA. Build the barracks you would need there. Or
issue heavy duty hearing protection for every man, woman & child in each swath you'll be
flying. Your use of "averages" in your EIS testing does not take into account the people &
wildlife & livestock that fall on the edge of the curve. Yes, we need to be prepared & yes,
our young men & women need to practice, but spend the money & don't ruin so close to
home. ###
(b)(6)
2714
Sequim, WA 98382
Considering the safety record of the EA-18G Growler aircraft and the noise pollution
associated with the activities of this aircraft, I believe it is inappropriate to increase the
number of these aircraft stationed at NAS Whidbey Island. Further, considering the
circumstances regarding the proposal for Electronic Warfare training in the Olympic
Forest, I believe it is a waste of government money to add the the existing contingent of
aircraft at NAS Whidbey. Because of the Navy's concern with travel costs to training
sites, it would be more appropriate to locate the current EA-18G aircraft as well as any
additional EA-18G aircraft in an location within a reasonable distance for the Navy to
maximize their training dollars.
(b)(6)
2715

I have been a part of the Lopez Island community for 20 years and currently live on the
north end of the island. I chose to live here because of the island's peaceful, rural
character. Growler flights are significantly altering that character, reducing my quality of
life. The earlier EIS was inadequate because it did not include any measurements of
noise experienced on Lopez The EIS must include the following analysis of noise on
Lopez: 1) Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over
a one-month period. The EIS will be incomplete without such measurements because
Lopez is an impacted area. 2. Include C-Weighted sound measurements and analysis in
the EIS. The low frequency rumbling is very disturbing. 3. The EIS analysis should
and Peak Sound Level (Lmax). Document the projected annual number of events that
exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5 dB increments throughout the impacted areas of San
Juan County. It is the peak sound level events that most effect me. 4. Sound
measurement and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners. Afterburners are being
used; the analysis will be incomplete if their effects are not analyzed.
(b)(6)
2716
,
I am trained as an environmental scientist. I have chosen to live on Lopez Island and
endure the inconvenience of ferries because of the island's peace and quiet. The Growler
noise has significantly reduced my quality of life. The EIS needs to consider the impacts
of the noise (including the low frequency C rumbling noise) not only on humans but also
on protected and endangered species such as Stellar sea lions and killer whales. At the
information meeting I attended no one could tell me to what extent the noise (including
low frequency C noise) penetrated the air-water interface and was transmitted under
water. This is something that must be determined and included as part of the EIS as the
presence of these species is an important part of life on these islands and attracts
tourists to them.
(b)(6)
2717
,
I am a resident of Lopez Island who chose to live here because of the island's peace and
quiet. That peace and quiet is being destroyed by Growler activity. Growler noise has
altered the character of this island. Walks at Watmough are disturbed by Growler noise.
This island has been a tourist destination, and much of our economy is based on that.
Growler noise threatens our tourism-based economy. It also reduces our property values;
city dwellers want to purchase property on Lopez to escape noise, and are less
interested in purchasing property if they are going to be disturbed by Growler noise. The
EIS must consider the economic impacts of Growler noise on Lopez Island's tourist
economy and on property values for vacation or weekend homes.
(b)(6)
2718
After many years of visiting friends on Whidbey Island (where I also own property), I
recently moved to the island. One of the first things I encountered were the EA18s
directly over my head, producing an alarming and painful amount of noise. I attended a
public scoping meeting in Coupeville in Oct. 2014. I was frustrated by how many of my
questions were brushed aside and left unanswered. I was also surprised to see that
among the choices listed for future action by the Navy, "no EA18s" was not on the list. It's
clear to me that the only choice we're being given (if we're really being given a choice at
all) is how many more of these jets will be flying over us. I'm not opposed to military
training but I fail to understand why these incredibly loud jets must train over Whidbey
Island. Surely there are other more suitable locations in the U.S. for such training. My
understanding from research is that the jets operate at a decibel level that damages
hearing. These planes are flying over people's houses where small children live which
cannot be healthy or safe. I'm also very concerned about the environmental impact this
level of noise has on wildlife in the fly zone. I'm also concerned that the Navy no longer
conducts weed suppression around the OLF, thus allowing the spread of clearly identified
noxious weeds into sensitive areas. The dismissive manner in which most of my
questions at the scoping meeting were dealt with raises my concerns that these meetings
-- and this comment period -- has been set up to satisfy public comment requirements
while the Navy has no intention of paying attention to anything anyone has to say. I
believe the Navy can be a better neighbor and still accomplish its mission. I hope those in
charge of this process as well as the EA18 program will genuinely listen to what people
have to say and respond accordingly.
(b)(6)
2719

I moved to the very south end of Lopez Island in Dec. of 2012. The noise and over-flights
from the Growlers at Ault field is beyond human tolerance I have been impacted by the
uproar, vibration and intrusion by the over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers San
Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact area. This is impossible Analysis in the 2005
and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was inadequate to support the
findings. The Navy must remit the analysis in order to support proposed actions in the
flights. Please be diligent (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2720

Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled *My property is with in the ten mile radius
of the airstrips I hear ALL craft activity -Being prepared> to take any possible initiative to
care for my well being during your training exercises by posted flight schedule provides
this planning Carrier Approaches (CCA). Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M:
Bargen R: Airspace Blues, Airspace, Gabbs, Nev, p 424, 1989.
(b)(6)
2721

The study of impact on children day to day to imagine the fear factor physiological long
term -Children do not have defense capacity they are mandated to endure this intrusion
as they are mandated to attend schools Seems this resembles shell shock from a war
zone. As it is I am already sustaining physiological effects of body swelling heart
palpitation high frequency ring in my ears.How do children interpret that which they do
not understand The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on
children. Parents, teachers and children should be questioned about behavioral
(b)(6)
2722
,
I am writing this letter in regard to the U.S. Navys scoping process for the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station
(NAS) Whidbey Island. From what I have gleaned after attending the scoping meeting in
Port Townsend and from subsequent reading, I urge you to insist that the Navys EIS
consider the following issues: Noise and Economic Impact: The EIS must evaluate the
impact of jet noise on the local economies of Jefferson, Clallam, Island, and Skagit
Counties. These counties are mainly rural and residential. Their economies depend on
recreational tourism and associated services. The proximity of protected, natural areas
nearby is what draws visitors to this area. The Navys proposed increased of Growler
aircraft taking off, landing and flying overhead is sure to adversely affect local
communities and economy and must be addressed in the EIS. The EIS should also
include real measuring of noise levels based on individual landings and take offs rather
than relying on computer modeling averaged over a 24-hour period. Alternative training
location: The EIS must consider alternative training locations. Whidbey Islands
Coupeville OLF is not an essential facility to the Navy. Additionally, the unknown
long-term effects of the emitting towers on plants, animals, migrating birds and unique
ecosystems in the Olympic National Forest require the Navys EIS to consider a more
suitable location for the Growler training operations. Health Effects: The EIS should
assess the health effects of toxic aircraft pollution and the environmental consequences
of dumping excess fuel over the Olympic Peninsula and in Puget Sound and the Strait of
Juan de Fuca. Wildlife: The EIS must consider the potential adverse impacts on wildlife
and migratory birds specifically in the proposed locations of the emitting towers on the
Olympic Peninsula. I urge you to insist that the Navy address these issues in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for EA- 18G Growler Airfield
operations at the Naval Air Station on Whidbey Island. Thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2723

People require rest during a 24 hour period The range of age groups from babies to the
elderly- Yet to ask during the day who needs this time frame to rest Even with X amount
of hours during the night of no flying is not comprehensive to human need to recover from
the Growlers impact. By my experience to date daily flight activity will have permanent
damage consequences on us all Please resume studies The EIS should address sleep
(b)(6)
2724

This craft has no purpose but as a weapon > to continue to train/test fly over populated
areas is an act of war against your own citizens I see on this form CRISIS lines for vets
what divides us human to humanity ? The EIS should fully evaluate one or more
alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2725
Seattle, WA 98112
The San Juan islands are a national treasure and marine sanctuary. People who live and
vacation there treasure the sanctity of life away from severe noise pollution. The Growler
series is beyond any previous level of auditory torture performed by the Navy on
Whidbey, except for the sonic under water booms that kill whales and dolphins. This
series has been inflicted upon the whole Puget Sound area with no regard for it's effects
on humans and animals. It is a criminal assault on all who reside within their range.
Please reconsider the development of this operation and it's untenable deployment in the
San Juan Islands air space. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2726
Olympia, WA 98506
Don Hoch Director STATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION 1111 Israel Road SW P.O. Box 42650 Olympia, WA
98504-2650 (360) 902-8500 Washington Telecommunication Relay Service at (800)
833-6388 www.parks.wa.gov January 6, 2015 EA-18G EIS Project Manager Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic Attn: Code EV21/SS 6506 Hampton Boulevard
Norfolk, VA 23508 Dear Project Manager, Thank you for the opportunity to provide
scoping comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA -18G Growler
Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island. The Washington State
Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks) manages a diverse array of 117
camping and day-use parks throughout Washington State. State Parks appreciates the
strong and positive relationship it has with the Navy. Historically, State Parks and the
Navy have had productive partnerships including sharing services such as water and
sewer provision for our respective facilities. State Parks thanks our military men and
women for their service and the Navy for the sensitivity shown to the communities in
which it operates. State Parks notes that the men and women of NAS Whidbey Island are
frequent park users, often volunteer in our parks and, through purchase of the Discover
Pass, contribute to the overall financing of our state park system. Like NAS Whidbey
Island, state parks play an important economic role in our communities. It is estimated
that in 2011 the six largest state parks in the 10th legislative district - Cama Beach State
Park, Camano Island State Park, Deception Pass State Park, Fort Casey State Park, Fort
Ebey State Park and South Whidbey State Park - contributed over $50 million dollars to
the local economy . *Estimate based on a 2002 economic study conducted by Dean
Runyan Associates titled Economic Impacts of Visitors to Washington State Parks. The
state parks listed below have the highest potential to be impacted by airfield operations at
NAS Whidbey Island. These include: Cama Beach State Park Camano Island State
Park Deception Pass State Park Dugualla State Park Ebeys Landing State Park
Fort Casey State Park Fort Ebey State Park Fort Flagler State Park Fort Worden
State Park Fort Flagler State Park Fort Townsend State Park Fort Worden State Park
Joseph Whidbey State Park Rothschild House Heritage Area South Whidbey State
Park Anderson Lake State Park A large number of other state park areas are impacted to
a lesser degree including South Whidbey Island, Skagit Valley, Marrowstone Island, and
the San Juan Marine Area. Information related to the facilities and uses provided at each
of these parks can be found on the State Parks website at http://www.parks.wa.gov/.
State Parks requests that the following potential impacts to recreation be addressed
through the Draft EIS review process: Potential impact of noise and frequency of flight
operations on the day-use and overnight recreating public camping in tents, trailers or
RVs directly under or in close proximity to flight paths. During the busy summer use
season, large parks such as Deception Pass State Park can have up to 2000 people
sleeping in accommodations such as tents, trailers and RVs which are not designed to
shield from the level of noise resulting from airfield operations; Potential impact of noise
due to frequency and location of flight operations on park employees; The potential
impact of single event noise levels (SEL) and Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) on
the day-use, overnight recreating public camping in tents, trailers or RVs, and parks
employees directly under or in close proximity to flight paths; The potential impact of
noise and exhaust particles on endangered, threatened, and rare plant and animal
species, habitats, and vegetation communities in Natural Forest Areas, Natural Area
Reserves, and other significant State Park classified environments directly under or in
close proximity to flight paths; The potential impact of particulates from exhaust and
potential health effects on the recreating public and on long term residents such as park
staff, including analysis of the potential for toxic materials that are above the threshold
recommended for human health and safety to accumulate in the air and soil;
Consideration of alternative flight paths for airfield operations. In the event that flight
paths cannot be modified, consideration to modify the timing of flight operations to align
with State Parks quiet hour restrictions which are from 10:00 pm to 6:30 am;
Consideration of concentrating night flights in the winter when fewer members of the
recreating public are using and camping in state parks; Consideration of sharing flight
schedules so that state park visitors can be apprised of dates when heavy air traffic is
anticipated. In the interest of providing solution-oriented feedback, State Parks
respectfully requests that the Navy consider appointment of an intergovernmental impact
assessment advisory committee to provide guidance on critical scoping questions. State
Parks would be pleased to serve on such an ad hoc committee. Absent committee
formation, State Parks is available for consultation on the details of any study efforts
associated with the development of the DEIS. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
comment. If you have any questions I can be reached at 360.902.8632 or
randy.kline@parks.wa.gov. Sincerely, Randy Kline, Environmental Program Manager CC
via email: Don Hoch, Director, Washington State Parks Rodger Schmitt, Member, State
Parks and Recreation Commission Jon Crimmins, Fort Casey State Park Daniel Farber,
Policy & Governmental Affairs Ed Girard, SW Region Manager Jack Hartt, Deception
Pass Area Manager Eric Watilo, NW Region Manager Jeff Wheeler, Cama Beach Area
Manager
2726
(b)(6)
2727
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

The sanctuary that is being disrupted and very possibly destroyed by these planes may
be irreversible. What tests and considerations have been taken to be sensitive to this
extraordinary natural environment?
(b)(6)
2728

Hello, I have lived full time on Lopez since 1994 though I have owned this property since
1978. I moved here with my husband because Lopez is peaceful and quiet and natural.
The current situation with Growlers flying over the island at all hours is extremely
upsetting to my chosen way of life here. Especially when the Navy can likely take action
to reduce the intolerable noise. My pets freak out. I myself am startled and cant have a
conversation until after the Growlers have passed over. Here comes another one right
now. Im very angry about this. The Navy should be implementing immediate noise
mitigations to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on citizens throughout
the region including San Juan County. In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) the Council on Environmental Quality regulation 1502, section 14 on Proposed
measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. I believe that the
2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly determined that there was no
adverse noise impact from the introduction of the Growlers. Therefore it was
modified to minimize routes over populated areas, including the south end of Lopez
Island, to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler training flights over populated areas
Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2729
Anacortes, WA 98221
We moved to Anacortes this past summer and enjoyed a relatively quiet summer... All of
a sudden when Fall came, there began to be loud planes flying over at various hours...
they are very Loud. If I am getting the groceries out of the car, the noise is soo loud it
hurts my ears. I try to hold my hands over my ears in the driveway and it will not shut out
the very loud noise from the planes. We moved here to be closer to my husband's work..
thinking we were going to be in a peaceful community where we could enjoy time in the
garden and our home and retire in fifteen years or so. Even if I am in the house, the noise
is very loud and close. I do not want more planes flying overhead. I want fewer or none..
We did not move close to an airport or military base. I have been awakened and lay
awake unable to get to sleep due to the noise of the planes. Thank you for considering
the noise pollution extra planes would cause day and night in a residential neighborhood.
Also, for considering the health of the folks being effected by that noise.
(b)(6)
hadlock, WA 98339
It is a major mistake for the US Navy to move ahead with their plans of using the Olympic
Peninsula as a training ground for the Growler jets Many people visit the Peninsula yearly
because of it's beauty and pristine state..The US Navy is a cherished institution but it will
leave some very tarnished attitudes if it proceeds any further with this plan.
2730
(b)(6)
2731

I live on Mud Bay, Lopez Island. As I write this, yesterday and today have been hell. Like
most other days of the past year, for example. The roar and vibration of what I am sure
are Growler Jets (because what others are there that make such noise?)penetrates my
home and my body. I cannot think or act without interruption. I live 14 miles from the
airfield. Why must I be subject to such noise, roar, rumbling and vibration? This would not
be true at a "regular" airport! This has only been unbearable since the Growlers arrived. I
want the EIS to conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of San
Juan County over a one-month period. I want the sound measurements to include C
weighted sound measurement and analysis AND the effect of such sound.
(b)(6)
2732

I live on Mud Bay, Lopez Island, 14 miles from the airfield. My home and the area around
it feels like a war zone due to roar and vibration, as well as jets flying directly overhear...
earsplitting. The noise startles and distracts me, even after all this time. I cannot hold
continuous thoughts. I want the EIS analysis to incorporate supplemental noise
measurements including Sound Exposure Level and Peak Sound Level in addition to
Ldn. (Note, as I write this, my house is vibrating from a sudden roar; 12:32pm, January 6,
2015. Check your records.)(Now the jets are roaring above, with continued vibration felt
through the chair I am sitting on.) This place is a war zone. I want the EIS to include C
Weighted sound measurements and analysis and effects.
(b)(6)
2733

I live on Mud Bay, Lopez island, and I am very affected by the Growler Jet noise.
Yesterday and today, for example, have been filled with rumbles, roars, shrieks and
vibrations from jets taking off (I think) and jets above. The jets are excessively noisy.
Regarding the roar and shrieking, I want the EIS to include sound measurement and
analysis of the afterburners...or the Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the
Record of decision to NOT USE afterburners in flights over North Puget Sound.
(b)(6)
2734

I live on Mud Bay, Lopez island, and I am subject to almost daily roaring, rumbling, and
vibration from growler jets, both seen and unseen. I understand that previous sound
studies use daily averages of sound. This is not acceptable, and does not truthfully
evaluate the actual effect of the NOISE. The noise needs to be measured in actual time.
How loud does it really get with individual take-offs, fly overs, and landings? I do not feel
an average, I feel each and every impact. Daily average is a lie, and I think you know
that.
(b)(6)
2735
Redlands, CA 92373
Growler noise is destroying the environment which people have sought strenuously to
create. Noise can produce acute discomfort Any realignment of flight paths would help
(b)(6)
2736

I live on Mud Bay, Lopez island. I have owned this property since 1992. After frequent
visits, I moved to Lopez in 2013. The difference in environment due to the growler has
been incredible. The jet noise is unbearable. I want the EIS to address the health effects
of the growler noise. Medical surveys should be conducted on the populations in the
vicinity of NASWI, including the San Juan islands. I am constantly startled and distracted
by the roaring, rumbling and vibration, which are occurring even now as I write. There is
no peace or respite from the jet noise.
(b)(6)
2737

I live on Mud Bay, Lopez island. When I first purchased this property it was quiet and
peaceful. I could hear birds singing. This is no longer true. I feel that I have lost control of
my life. I no longer wish to invite any friends or family to visit the island. I am afraid of
having guests for dinner while the house is vibrating from jet roaring.I do not want to go
for walks where the jets fly over me. I want to EIS to analyze the effects of this loss of
control. Any mitigation should include a monthly schedule of operations at NASWI. The
pity of that is that then I know when I have to leave the island, but then at least I would
know. And, when I leave, I hate to return. The Navy has made my home a war zone.
(b)(6)
2738

I live on Mud Bay, Lopez island. When I first purchased this property it was quiet and
peaceful. I could hear birds singing. This is no longer true. I feel that I have lost control of
my life. I no longer wish to invite any friends or family to visit the island. I am afraid of
having guests for dinner while the house is vibrating from jet roaring.I do not want to go
for walks where the jets fly over me. I want to EIS to analyze the effects of this loss of
control. Any mitigation should include a monthly schedule of operations at NASWI. The
pity of that is that then I know when I have to leave the island, but then at least I would
know. And, when I leave, I hate to return. The Navy has made my home a war zone.
(b)(6)
2739

I live on Lopez island. Two days ago I was at the Anacortes ferry dock, returning to
Lopez. While there, growler jets flew low above, screaming. I had to cover my ears. The
EIS needs to measure the sound of the jets when they fly low over populated areas. Not
an average sound, but measure the sound and effect on humans and animals of the
actual event.
(b)(6)
2740
Greenbank, WA 98253
To the EA-18G Growler Project Manager: I believe it is important for our National Parks
and Forests to remain places for nature and sanctuary for humans. Must we destroy the
peace to protect it? Sincerely, (b)(6)
Whidbey Island, WA
(b)(6)
2741

I live on Lopez Island. There are many many nights when the noise of the jets causes
excessive and almost constant rumbling and vibration. I have heard that it is often the
result of engine run-ups, though I know from experience and sightings that there are also
jets flying low above my home at night. As a result, I cannot always get to sleep. There
have been many instances where the noise and vibration continue until midnight. The
EIS should address sleep disturbance; survey the region's residents; limit jet activity.
Sleep loss is affecting my health.
(b)(6)
2742

I live on Lopez island and my life is severely disrupted by the Growlers. Life was relatively
peaceful prior to their arrival. I want the EIS to study and recommend alternatives to
locating the growlers at NASWI. The population of this region has grown substantially
since jets first began to fly at NASWI. There is much more effect in terms of the noise,
vibration and air pollution.The EIS should RIGOROUSLY EXPLORE AND EVALUATE
ALL REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES to the number of growler jets AND the location of
those jets at other places in the USA. There must be other places of lower population.
Furthermore, explore alternatives of flight patterns. There is more ambient noise on
Skagit and Snohomish counties; I suggest that the flight pattern include places where the
noise is not as noticeable as it is in the San Juan County and Jefferson County areas.
(b)(6)
2743

I live on Lopez island. The noise of the growler jets is excessive. I want the EIS to identify
other locations (ALTERNATIVES) where the growler jets could be located.
(b)(6)
2744

I live on Lopez Island, and as I write this comment, I am subject to intense engine ROAR
and my house and body are vibrating. It is clear to me that the NAVY has taken no action
to mitigate the effects of the Growler noise. My home is in a war zone. I want the EIS to
consider all mitigation measures and include them in the record of decision. Mitigation
studies should include: minimizing flight routes over populated areas including San Juan
County; assuring that flights are above 3000 feet elevation; no afterburners; a hush
house for training and engine run-ups; modification of the jets to reduce noise; notification
of monthly schedules of jet use.
(b)(6)
2745

I live on Lopez island. I have owned this property since 1992, a time when the islands
were much more peaceful than they are now due to the excessive growler noise. I am
considering selling my home due to the constant engine roar and fly-overs that disturb
me on a mostly continuous basis. I do not see how I can retrieve my investment when it
is so clear to any buyer that they would be buying a home in a war zone. Furthermore, I
am very hesitant to invite friends and family to visit me on Lopez since I could not expect
that they would come at a time when the house would not be vibrating. The EIS should
address economic impacts throughout all counties adjacent to NASWI.
(b)(6)
2746

I live on Lopez island. As I write this I can feel my chair vibrating. The jet noise yesterday
and today have been excessive. It is cloudy and I do not know what is going on, but it is
like last year and the year before. I cannot concentrate with the roar and vibration. The
doors and windows are closed. the TV is on, yet all I hear in this house in jet roars. I want
the EIS to examine ALTERNATIVES and MITIGATION. I want the EIS to study other
locations for the growler jets. I want the EIS to study C Weighted sound, not averages,
but actual jet noise events. I want the EIS to examine changing flight paths away from
quiet regions. I want the EIS to study how the growler jets could be retrofitted to be
quieter. I want the record of decision to reflect alternatives and mitigation.
(b)(6)
2747

I live on Lopez island. I understand that the previous records of decision and
Environmental Assessments have been inadequate because they have not studied actual
effects of jet noise on Lopez island.I want the EIS to conduct its analysis from the
beginning and NOT tier off of those earlier documents.
(b)(6)
2748
Lakewood, WA 98497-0055
We have enjoyed peace and quiet on the Southend of Lopez Island for 40 years, now we
suffer sleep disturbance due to the Growler night noise intrusion (and daytime too), it is
affecting our health. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents
in the study area including San Juan County should document the extent of this problem.
0800 should be developed and studied. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2749
Sirs: We have lived near Pt. Colville for over 40 years, and we are now tortured by the
noise of the growlers. We urge you to conduct continuous sound measurements in the
southern portion of SJC over a one-month period, including C Weighted sound
that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5dB incremenents throughout the impacted areas
including San Juan County. Sound measurement and analysis should include
afterburners or the Navy should commit in the mitigation of the Record of Decision (ROD)
to not use afterburners in training flights. Thank you for your attention to this vital issue,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2750
Dear Sirs: In the southend of Lopez island we have experienced Growler jet noise at all
times of the day and night. (Noise ranges from 65-110dBA and 75-124dBc inside) as a
result of over flights and/or sonic booms, engine testing and training operations. There is
no published schedule of training operations for Ault Field. Not knowing when and for
how long the noise will occur severely impacts quality of life, use of property and has
health consequences. Surveys show that loss of control over one's life is one of the most
Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs) Sincerely,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2751
Sirs: Our friends won't come up to Lopez Island anymore. Since the Growler noise
(especially in the Southend next to Point Coleville Historic Monument) has become
overwhelming day and night, their children were very distressed each visit, exhibiting
panic, bed wetting, sleep disturbances even after their return to the mainland. They
cannot understand why this paradise has become an unpredictably shaken environment
with noise so loud one cannot have a peaceful bedtime story reading -neither can we.
not average sleep noise. The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler noise
on children. Parents, teachers and children should be questioned about behavioral
Lopez Island School and Lopez Village, as well as the directly impacted Point Coleville
area. Sincerely,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2752
Sirs: We are living next to the Coleville Point Historic Monument, and the noise of
Growlers from the NAS Whidbey Island has wrecked the peace and quiet we have
enjoyed for over 40 years. We now don't know whether those blasts are for a one-time
shock, or will go on for hours, even far into the night. We cannot sleep well anymore. The
EIS should address the health effects of Startle Reactions. Conduct medical surveys on
the impacted populations including San Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for
all Growler activity. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2753
anacortes, WA 98221
Rep Rick Larsen, when he was visiting Lopez Is., said that GE makes a jet engine that is
quieter, more powerful, and more energy efficient than what you are using. That would
certainly be preferable to what is currently being used. He said the Navy preferred more
noise because that was more frightening to the public. In view of the stress, discomfort,
and hearing damage being caused by jet noise, I feel you are obligated to reduce the
noise wherever possible. The better answer is move the jets to a field located in an area
that is less populated. I included that location in my comments last year.
(b)(6)
2754

The Navy must implement noise/blast mitigation (the residents of San Juan County
experience night and day blasts from 75-124dBc) to reduce the adverse health and
economic impacts NAS Growlers have on business and the citizens throughout the
Northwest region. At a minimum the following noise/blast mitigation measures must be
seriously considered. All mitigation measures must be included in the Record of Decision
(ROD) with timelines for completion. a) Growler training flights must be modified to
minimize routs over populated areas. b) Growler training flights over populated areas
must be above 3,000 feet elevation. c) Afterburners must not be used during Growler
training flights over North Puget Sound. d) A Ground Run-up Enclosure (Hush House)
must be used for noise/blast suppression during ALL Growler engine testing. e) Test,
acquire and deploy noise/blast reductions for the General Electric F414 Growler engines.
f) Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield including
Field Carrier Landing Practice and Carrier Approaches. Thanks for reading. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2755

As a US citizen living at my current address for the past 41 years which now lies under a
flight path of NASWI Growlers to/from the proposed Electronic Warfare Range (EWR) on
the Olympic Peninsula, I have some scoping comments involving impact concerns I wish
to be addressed by the Navy's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 36 new
Growlers NASWI is acquiring. This EIS needs to be tied in to include what should have
been studied in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Pacific Northwest
Electronic Warfare Range Military Operations Area (MOA). Impacts must be accounted
for and measured for any and all flight paths to/form NASWI at all operational altitudes,
air speeds, and frequency (proposed clock hours and days of operation. At present, the
invasive racket from NASWI Growler traffic interrupts our sleep and otherwise quiet
solitude we sought and purchased when choosing this rural locale adjacent to the World
Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve in Olympic National Park (ONP) to raise our family.
The constant interruption of our tranquil environment occurs on a daily basis and adding
36 more of these aircraft will only exacerbate the problem. Noise monitoring needs to be
conducted on Growlers while in actual operation mode with afterburners on, not
simulated conditions with older (quieter) aircraft, and on any flight formations involving
multiple aircraft. As NASWI intends to fly these 36 Growlers over US Forest Service
(USFS) ground, it must comply with the 1988 Agreement between the Department of
Defense (DoD) and the Department of Agriculture (DoA), whereby the DoD is required to
forward its analysis and determination showing how lands under its administration are
unsuitable or unavailable for this proposed EWR. The DoD needs to show this use is
needed, desired, and compatible with USFS, ONP, Washington State Department of
Natural Resources, Clallam County, and privately held lands in this proposed MOA; uses
that include campers, hikers, and home/business owners surrounding the MOA. DoD
needs to show impacts on any listed endangered species within the noise and
electromagnetic radiation range of all Growler operations. DoD needs to show the
negative economic impacts of operating these 36 Growlers over their projected range as
affects businesses and home valuations, tourist revenues lost due to noise, perceived
threat of adverse health effects due to electromagnetic radiation exposure, and the
gradual visitor perception that the Olympic Peninsula is being transformed into a military
reservation. Finally, because the DoD never studied the impacts of the existing NASWI
fleet of 82 Growlers on the EWR, those impacts must be studied in this EIS.
(b)(6)
2756

6 January 2015 EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Atlantic 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS
Sent via: http://www.whidbeyeis.com/Comment.aspx To the EA-18G Growler EIS Project
Manager: I am a resident of San Juan County, a property owner, business owner, and a
former member of the San Juan County Council. I am drafting this letter at 10:55am
(Tuesday, January 6th) as Growler noise once again destroys the quiet morning. I have
been following the EIS process for the past year. It appears that both the 2005 and the
2012 Environmental Assessments were deficient and incomplete. The Growlers were
moved to NASWI without a full EIS and without sufficient study of the following impacts to
San Juan County and the region: noise impacts, health consequences, impacts to wildlife
and ecosystems, and economic impacts. Further, both the 2005 and the 2012
Environmental Assessments were deficient and incomplete as they did not adequately
plan for the mitigation of noise from the Growlers. The low frequency noise which is the
considered a no significant impact area. Clearly this is not the case as I can attest as I
draft this comment letter. Both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments did
not address impacts to wildlife and ecosystems, including birds, and especially nesting
birds and their offspring. The full EIS must specifically address the impacts to the San
Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge which is part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, these islands have
been designated by Congress as a wilderness area where seabirds, eagles, and marine
mammals will have an undisturbed place to live and raise their young. (See
http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=13532 ) Both the 2005 and the 2012
Environmental Assessments did not address impacts to San Juan Countys economy
which is dependent on tourism and its reputation as a prime destination for those seeking
to live in a peaceful place with abundant outdoor recreational activities. The full EIS must
specifically address the impacts to the San Juan Islands National Monument and in
particular the Iceberg Point Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and the Point
Colville ACEC. The 1990 Management Plan (a NEPA document) for these properties
exists to protect the natural qualities of these ACEC properties. The full EIS must also
address the impacts to San Juan Countys property values, for those properties most
affected by Growler impacts and including any potential redistribution of property tax
burden to San Juan County property owners that are not directly affected. This EIS must
correct these and other deficiencies of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments
and must not rely on, or tier off of, these previous deficient and incomplete Records of
Decision. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2757
Although we appreciate the Navy providing a convenient way to provide comments and
feedback about our concerns, I am concerned that there is no method to view the
comments that are being submitted for your consideration. As these comments are part
of the official record for the EIS, it seems to me that they should be made available
throughout the comment period so interested and concerned citizens can review the input
of others. This would also help avoid unnecessary repetition of the same comments, or at
a minimum provide ways for people to register their agreement with the comments of
others. With very little additional effort at least the on-line comments could be made
available through the website, and a simple agree or disagree button provided for
each comment so people can simply register their concerns. It seems to me this would
also help facilitate the assessment of the feedback that the project team is receiving. The
introductory paragraph in the Proposed Action section of the website declares that
need for the ongoing use of Ault Field and Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville
will continue as if there are no other alternatives that are being considered. This
introduces a simple yet profound question: If the outlying Landing Field (OLF) did not
currently existing in the center of Whidbey Island, would the Navy seriously consider
constructing it in the current environment. Since the population density in close proximity
to this field is much greater now than it was when the OLF was originally constructed, I
doubt that a proposal to build this facility would pass the test of public scrutiny. There are
several significant reasons I believe that the OLF would not be approved today: The
field was originally constructed as a training facility for much smaller, lighter and less
powerful aircraft. If the total impact to the community from noise and other forms of
pollution that must be considered from the Growler fleet were being proposed as an
immediate and very large impact to property and home owners that live in the area, the
community would refuse the proposal outright. Slowly heating up water in a pot of water
containing a fog is the analogy that fits here. From the initial operation of the OLF with a
smaller fleet of substantially lower impact aircraft, our community has slowly been
subjected to a constant increase in impact of this operation. Just like the innocent frog,
our community has been slowly introduced to a boiling pot of water that is already
damaging our the values of the people in the vicinity and the peaceful use of our
properties. This consideration also introduces questions about where we go from here.
Since the current proposal expands the operation of the much louder Growler planes by
as much as 44%, there is every reason to believe that the Navy will want to increase the
load and impact even more in the future. The question becomes where is the limit? How
much more pain is our small and otherwise quiet Island community expected to bear? I
respectfully submit that now is the time for the Navy to stop expanding the use and
destructive operations of the Whidbey Outlying Field and get serious about alternative
locations that can be used to support carrier training and pilot certification now and into
the future. Our community has borne the brunt of continuous increases in pollution and
the damaging noise levels for over 50 years. It is time to find a permanent solution to the
Navys training facilities that can continue to grow with the size and power of the aircraft.
(b)(6)
2758
Eastsound, WA 98245
January 5, 2015 EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Atlantic 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS
Dear Growler EIS Project Manager: Today began quite peacefully. A cold, hard rain fell
outside. The fir and alder popped occasionally in my fireplace. Before beginning my work,
I started a new novel by William Gibson that my daughter gave me for Christmas. Then
the rumbling of the Navy jets drowned out the sounds of the rain and fire. I could barely
hear the phone ring. The loss of peace and quiet was profound. I remember when Orcas
island was a place that drew people who wanted tranquility long before the Navy chose
the San Juans and surrounding area for its jet aircraft training flights. My first visit to
Orcas in 1956, I must admit, was a loud one. My Uncle Joel, a preacher, held a three-day
revival in a tent near Eastsound. Indeed, I am quite confident that, if his sermons and the
spirited singing of Onward Christian Soldiers had been measured by a Sound Level
Meter, they might have approached the 115 dBA of the Growler jets now overflying our
islands. But today experts tell us that San Juan County has a low background noise of 34
to 45 dBA (outside). Growler jets from Ault Field regularly assault island residents with
blasts of noise so high that they are in danger of many negative health effects. As we
begin 2015, I appreciate the opportunity to offer some scoping comments on the
Environmental Impact Statement for the EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at NAS
Whidbey Island. The Navy is proposing to continue the VAQ mission-related functions at
Ault and OLF Coupeville and to ADD up to 36 jets that could overfly the San Juan
Islands. This EIS comes after those completed in 2005 and 2012 that were totally
inadequate and reached findings unsupported by the facts. I believe that for a number of
reasons: 1. Earlier Environmental Assessments claimed that San Juan County is outside
the area affected by Growler activity. Residents of our county obviously experience
substantial noise from the Navy jets that is loud and disruptive. Perhaps flights are being
conducted a lower elevations. Ducting of jet noise may be occurring between water and
clouds as well. In this new EIS, I urge the Navy to conduct continuous sound
measurements across San Juan County over two separate one-month periods during
which normal operations occur. 2. Sound measurements and analysis in earlier EAs used
a method known as A Weighting. Those EAs presumed that Growler jets are less noisy
than the Prowler aircraft that are being phased out. Many of us believe that is incorrect.
Growler engine noise has a low-frequency component that is ignored by A Weighting
measurements. As Hodgdon, Atchley, and Bernhard reported in 2007, low-frequency
noise can have serious negative health impacts. I urge the Navy to include sound
measurements of Growlers that also includes C Weighting to pick up the low-frequency
spectrum, which likely will show results 10 to 20 dB higher than A Weighting. 3. Growler
noise in the San Juan Islands is intermittent and occurs in an environment of very low
outside background noise (below that of the quiet suburban neighborhood cited in the
Wyle report used for the 2012 EA). Among the many harmful health effects of the
Growler noise is the startle factor. I urge the EIS to incorporate supplemental noise
measurements, including Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (LMAX) in
addition to the Day-Night Average metric and to document the projected annual number
of noise events that will exceed 60 dB SEL and LMAX in 5 dB increments throughout the
impacted areas, including San Juan County. 4. Noise measurements and projections in
the previous EAs assumed that afterburners are not in use. But it appears that
afterburners in fact ARE used at times including takeoffs and FCLPs. I urge the Navy to
include sound measurement and analysis in the EIS that includes afterburner noise. If the
Navy maintains afterburners are not being used, it should so commit in the mitigation
section of the Record of Decision (ROD). 5. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments were deficient in their overall analysis, as well as human health
consequences, alternatives, mitigation, and economic consequences. In view of those
serious failures, I urge that this EIS should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and
Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 EAs. This new EIS should conduct an entirely
new analysis unpolluted by the past failures. 6. To me the most important scoping issue
is the economic impacts of noise in San Juan County from the Navy jets. The entire basis
of the economy in the San Juans is its pristine environment. The San Juan County
Comprehensive Plan notes that the islands are places of peacewe support a pattern
of economic growthwhich recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine,
and isolated nature of the islands. The county attracts hikers, cyclists, kayakers, sailors,
and other lovers of nature who generate thousands of jobs supporting this tourism. And it
attracts residents and retirees who value the peace and quiet the islands have provided
for many years until the introduction of the Navy jets. Because continuation of the current
level of jet noise (let alone increasing the number of jets and overflights) will discourage
visitors and reduce property values, I urge the EIS to provide a comprehensive, detailed
analysis of the economic impacts of the Growler program on San Juan County and other
counties impacted by it. 7. The 2005 and 2012 EAs erred seriously in concluding there
were no adverse noise impacts and therefore no mitigation alternatives. I urge the new
EIS to include mitigation in the Record of Decision with completion timelines that includes
Growler training flight paths that avoid routes over or near populated areas, including the
entirety of Orcas, Lopez, Show and San Juan islands. Other mitigation should include no
use of afterburners over North Puget Sound, a hush house for noise suppression during
training engine run-ups/testing, noise reduction measures for the GE F414 engines used
on the Growlers, and notification two weeks in advance of all Growler training operations.
8. I urge the new EIS to address sleep disturbance in San Juan County due to the
Growler flights. Residents routinely experience the jet noise as late as midnight or 1 a.m.
A number of residents have maintained noise journals that report indoor sound levels
including low-frequency noise of up to 80 to 124.6 dBA. It is well established that noise
disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead to health disorders and interfere with
convalescence from illness. 9. The new EIS should address the health effects of jet noise
on children. Parents, teachers, and children should be questioned about their
experiences with Growler noise. 10. I am also concerned about reports that the Navy will
conduct additional Growler training flights involving the Royal Australian Air Force, which
is buying 12 new Growler jets for their use. If that is contemplated, I urge that the EIS
study it as well. 11. The proposed action statement of the new EIS fails to include
alternatives that base the Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. I urge
the new EIS to evaluate fully one or more alternatives involving basing the Growlers at a
location other than NAS Whidbey Island. There are many thousands of miles of remote
American terraindeserts, plains, mountains, etc.that are unpopulated and would
provide an excellent training environment without degrading an existing population
through excessive noise. The residents of San Juan County seem to me to be very
patriotic Americans. Opposition to the negative noise impacts of the Growler jets does not
imply any negative view of the brave women and men who defend our country with great
2758
skill and commitment. I appreciate all they do to keep us safe. Hopefully, a successful
Navy Environmental Impact Statement for the Growler airfield operations at NAS
Whidbey Island will point the direction to solutions to the hugely harmful impact of the jet
noise impacting Orcas, Lopez, and other island residents. Thanks you for considering my
views. Sincerely,(b)(6)
Olga, WA 98279
2758
(b)(6)
2759
Friday Harbo, WA 98250

Please study the Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children I have lived on Lopez Island for
29 years and have worked as a Public Health Nurse in the County for 24 years with a
specialty in Maternal/Child Health. In the past few years the jet flight patterns have
expanded to include flights over the Lopez School and Preschool in Lopez Village.
Growler traffic over my home on the south end of the island near Davis Bay is definitely
impacting my life. What used to be a quiet peaceful place to live now regularly is filled
with the rumbling, ominous sounds of a war zone. My windows vibrate. My body vibrates.
I am concerned about the effects on the children at our school and our preschool.
Research shows that children can be very distressed over military jet over flights.
Behaviors in children may include: terror, panic, screaming, freezing in place,
elevation of blood pressure. Quiet Skies Over San Juan County 10 06 December 2014
shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. Sincerely
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2760

Mitigation As a resident of Lopez Island for 29 years San Juan County and a Public
Health Nurse serving infants and families with young children for 24 years I urge the
Navy to begin implementing noise mitigations to reduce the noise impacts of Growler
areas, including the south end of Lopez Island, to the greatest extent possible. Quiet
Skies Over San Juan County 12 06 December 2014 b) Growler training flights over
Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2761
East Hampton, NY 11937

I am a frequent visitor to the area and have relatives nearby. The noise levels generated
by Growlers are clearly harmful to humans and the electronic warfare practice has
unknown health consequences that would be better carried out far away from populated
areas.
(b)(6)
2762
Lopez , WA 98261
Please study the Economic impacts of the Growler Flights over the San Juan Islands The
Growlers are not only changing the quality of life for San Juan County Residents, but
those that travel here to visit the National Monument sites and to seek refuge from urban
areas. The contrast of the quiet over the the last week (from Christmas to New Years was
a reminder of the peaceful environment we used to appreciate. As we reach retirement
age and consider moving, there is concern amongst those working in real estate that this
makes the area less marketable, as the word gets out about the noise assault from the
Growlers. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of
kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. Visitors have commented on the
change experienced with the jet noise and have stated that they will reconsider
recommending the Islands as a peaceful retreat. This has and will continue to negatively
impact our tourist economy. Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone
and Island Counties. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2763
After 40 years of blissful peace and quiet next to the National Monument lands at
Coleville Point we have experienced, since last year, not the sounds of eagles, whales,
seals, and other wildlife, but the blasting and roaring and growling from the intrusive
Whidbey Island Growlers. There must be some alternatives to this dire situation.
Reasonable alternatives should be explored and evaluated. Just because they cost more
and are less efficient, they should not be dismissed. The EIS should fully evaluate one or
Sincerely, (b)(6)
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2764
Olga, WA 98279
Dear Growler EIS Project Manager: What I value most about the San Juans is that is
should be a quiet and tranquil place. However, the rumbling of Navy jets now too
frequently drowns out the sounds of silence and peace. This increase is jet noise has
been quite profound. I urge the EIS to begin to reduce the noise, not increase it. Thanks
for considering my views.
(b)(6)
2765
Olga, WA 98279
the growler noise is used to damage our enemies, therefore it should be obvious that it is
more than annoying, and actually harmful to those of us who hear it in the testing areas.
health impacts beyond annoyance.
(b)(6)
2766
Why should we have to go back home to find the peace and quiet we are denied in the
Southend of Lopez Island, which we have enjoyed and cherished for over 40 years? We
feel that the Navy should be implementing immediate noise mitigations to reduce the
Juan County. At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully considered.
All selected mitigation measures should be included in the Record of Decision (ROD)
along with timelines for completion. Just because they cost more and are less efficient,
reasonable alternatives should not be dismissed. 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessment incorrectly determined that there was no adverse noise impact from the
introduction of the Growlers, and it was inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation.
The EIS should full a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on
areas including the south end of Lopez Island to the greatest extent possible. b)
GrowlertrainingflightsoverpopulatedareasincludingSanJuanCounty should be above
3,000 feet elevation. c) Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over
North Puget Sound. d) AGroundRun-upEnclosureorHushHouseshouldbeusedfornoise
Sincerely,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2767
Lopez, WA 98261
I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island since 1960. In the last year noise and
over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything we have experienced
in the last 55 years. All the reasons we have chosen to live here are being degraded by
the constant noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers
San Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact area. This is clearly false. Analysis in
the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was inadequate to
support the findings. The Navy must enhance the analysis in order to support proposed
actions in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS should study the following:
A. Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a
one-month period. B. Include C-Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS.
C. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements including
Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (Lmax) in addition to Ldn.
dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County. D. Sound
in training flights. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2768
Lopez, WA 98261
To whom this concerns: I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island since 1974. In the
last year noise and over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything we
have experienced in the last 35 years. All the reasons we have chosen to live here are
being degraded by the constant noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers.
(b)(6)
2769

Scoping Letter for # 1 Analysis: I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island for over 30
years. I choose to make Lopez Island my home because of the quiet, the beauty, and the
close-knit community. The incessant roar of the Growlers has destroyed the peace and
quiet that I have loved. Tonight as I write this letter, I have been subjected to the non-stop
rumble of the Growlers for at least 4 hours straight. The intense noise caused by overflights and warm-ups from the Growlers at Ault field has far exceeded any noise we have
experienced in the last 30+ years. There are those of us who choose the sanctuary of a
quiet environment as our Home, making it possible to hear bird song, wind across the
fields, frogs in the marshes, and more. And now, the incessant roar is everywhere,
unavoidable day and night. We have lost the sanctuary of a quiet environment and the
reasons that we call this island our Home. In summary, the noise of the Growlers has a
devastating impact on my life and many others in San Juan County. Analysis The Navy
has defined San Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact area. This is false.
President Obama designated the San Juan Islands National Monument in 2012. There
are several National Parks, wildlife refuges, state and local parks. Tourists flock to the
SJ's to experience the natural beauty, peace and quiet. That experience is being
destroyed by the presence of the Growlers. Previous Environmental Assessments (EAs)
were inadequate to support the findings. The Navy must enhance the analysis in order to
afterburners in training flights. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2770
Lopez, WA 98261
#2 Health Effects Related to Startle Reaction from Growler Training: I live on a hill on the
south end of Lopez and work from home. We experience Growler noise usually 5 days a
week often starting at 8am and continuing until 9 -10 pm in the winter and 12 pm 1 am
in the summer. One of the most difficult aspects for me is the Startle effect. We get
sporadic blasts of noise throughout the day. My adrenalin kicks in and my blood pressure
rises. This constant noise is affecting my mental and emotional health. References:
Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise (pub 1115), National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, pp. 535- 545, 1984. Hall, FL., Birnie,
SE, Taylor, SM, Palmer, JE: Direct Comparison of Community Response to Road Traffic
Noise and To Aircraft Noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70:1690-1698, 1981. The EIS should
address the health effects of Startle Reactions. Medical surveys should be conducted
on the impacted populations including San Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place
for all Growler activity. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2771
Lopez, WA 98261
To whom it concerns: I live on a bedrock hill on (b)(6)
the South end of Lopez and
work from home. We experience Growler noise usually 5 days a week often starting at
8am and continuing until 9 -10 pm in the winter and 12 pm 1 am in the summer. One of
the most difficult aspects for me is the Startle effect. We get sporadic blasts of noise
throughout the day. My adrenalin kicks in and my blood pressure rises. This constant
noise is definitely affecting my mental and emotional health. References: Kryter K:
Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise (pub 1115), National
for all Growler activity. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2772

I have lived on Lopez Island since 1969. In the last year noise and over-flights from the
Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything we have experienced in the last 45 years.
All the reasons we have chosen to live here are being degraded by the constant noise,
vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County
(SJC) a no significant impact area. This is clearly false. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012
flights. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2773
, WA
ANALYSIS: I enjoy visiting San Juan County and specifically, south Lopez Island. I am
very concerned about the constant noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers.
(b)(6)
2774
Lopez, WA 98261
#3 Health Effects Related to Loss of Control: I live on the south end of Lopez Island.
are destroying many of the reasons we chose to live on the island. When the jets are
flying the noise is often so intense that conversation stops and we cannot concentrate.
(b)(6)
2775

I live on the NE corner of Lopez Island. I can feel my adrenalin kick in and my blood
pressure rise every time I am startled by a growler passing over my house. This constant
noise is definitely affecting my health. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological,
and Social Effects of Noise (pub 1115), National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2776
Lopez, WA 98261
#3 Health Effects Related to Loss of Control: I live on the South of Lopez Island.
are destroying many of the reasons we chose to live on the island. When the jets are
flying the noise is often so intense that conversation stops, and we cannot concentrate.
All meaningful work comes to a halt. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2777

Scoping Letter for # 2 Health Effects Related to Startle Reaction from Growler Training: I
have lived on the south end of Lopez Island for over 30 years. I choose to make Lopez
Island my home because of the quiet, the beauty, and the close-knit community. The
sudden roar of the Growlers has caused alarm, fear and has destroyed the peace and
quiet that I have loved. The intense noise caused by over- flights and warm-ups from the
Growlers at Ault field has far exceeded any noise we have experienced in the last 30+
years. The sound of the Growlers can be sudden, surrounding each of us with
unbearable noise. One of the most difficult aspects for me is the Startle effect. We get
sporadic blasts of intense noise throughout the day ranging from 75 113 decibels. At
times, I have been forced to stop all conversation, covering my ears as much as possible,
waiting until the unbearable noise has subsided. This has had a devastating impact on
my life as I have known it. The EIS should address the health effects of Startle
Reactions. 1) Medical surveys should be conducted on the impacted populations
including San Juan County. 2) Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
2778
,
Health effects related to Startle Reaction from Growler Training: I am concerned about
the startle reaction from sporadic blasts of noise on South Lopez ranging from 75 113
decibles. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise
(pub 1115), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, pp. 535- 545,
1984. Hall, FL., Birnie, SE, Taylor, SM, Palmer, JE: Direct Comparison of Community
Medical surveys should be conducted on the impacted populations including San Juan
(b)(6)
2779
Lopez, WA 98261
#4 Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children: I live on the south end of Lopez Island. The
Growler traffic over my home has frightened my grandchildren from playing outside. What
used to be a quiet peaceful place to live now regularly is filled with the sounds of a war
zone. Ear protection does nothing. My floor and walls vibrate. My body vibrates. I am
concerned about the effects on the children who no longer wish to play outside my
house. Research shows that children can be very distressed over military jet over flights.
elevation of blood pressure. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2780
Lopez, WA 98261
#4 Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children: I live on the south end of Lopez Island. The
elevation of blood pressure. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2781
Lopez, WA 98261
#4 Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children: I live on the south end of Lopez Island.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2782

Scoping Letter for # 3 Health Effects Related to Loss of Control: I have lived on the south
end of Lopez Island for over 30 years. Over-flights, the incessant roar during warm-ups,
the intense sudden blast of noise and vibrations from Growlers and operation at Ault
Field are degrading many of the reasons I have chosen to live on Lopez Island. The
intense noise of over-flights is often so unbearable that all conversation must stop, while
we cover our ears until the noise has abated. Residents never know if a blast of noise is
going to be a single 30 second event or the beginning of 6 hours of unabated noise from
1989. The EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control. 1) Mitigation should include
Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). 2)
Medical surveys should be conducted to determine the impacts of loss of control on
populations including San Juan County. 3) Mitigation should be put in place for all
Growler activity. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
2783
Lopez, WA 98261
#5 Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance: I have enjoyed living on Lopez Island for
over 50 years. One of the wonders of living here has been the quiet nights and being able
to hear the wind, the trees and all the wildlife night sounds. The Growlers have destroyed
this. We regularly experience jet noise between 8pm and 12 midnight. In the summer the
noise can continue until 1am. Research shows that the indoor threshold for falling asleep
is 35-40 dBA. Our noise journals show that indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field
range from 57 80 dBA. If the low frequency noise is measured the sound levels range
from 77 100 dBC. Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Its
developed and studied. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2784
,
Health effects related to Loss of Control: I enjoy visiting Lopez Island and Whidbey
Island. Over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations from Growlers and operation at Ault
Field and OLF are degrading many of the reasons I choose to visit Lopez Island and
Whidbey Island. When the jets are flying the noise is often so intense that conversation
stops. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of training
operations for Ault Field. As a consequence, residents and visitors never know if a blast
of noise is going to be a single 30 second event or the beginning of 3 hours of noise from
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2785
Lopez, WA 98261
#5 Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance: I have enjoyed living on Lopez Island for
over 40 years. One of the wonders of living here has been the quiet nights and being able
to hear the wind, the trees rustling and all kinds of wildlife night sounds. The Growlers
have destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise between 8pm and 12 midnight. In
the summer the noise can continue until 1am. Research shows that the indoor threshold
for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Our noise journals show that indoor sound levels from
area including San Juan County should document the extent of this problem. An
hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2786

Scoping Letter for # 4 Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children I have lived on Lopez
Island for over 30 years. The Growlers now frequently fly over the school, causing
consternation, alarm and fear in the younger children, as well as impacting their ability to
study, learn and feel safe. Growler traffic fills the air with the sounds of a war zone. The
sudden intense sounds or incessant roar has negatively impacted the children at our
school and our preschool. Research shows that children can be very distressed by
sudden unavoidable sounds such as those caused by military jet over flights. The EIS
should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children, including 1) Surveys of
parents, teachers and children to understand behavioral responses and consequences to
Growler noise. 2) Mitigation should include shifting flight patterns to avoid all overflights of
the Lopez Island School and preschool in Lopez Village. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez
Island
(b)(6)
2787
,
Health effects of Jet Noise on Children: I am very concerned about the health effects of
jet noise on children. I have heard parents talk about how traumatized their children are
when the jets fly over. Research shows that children can be very distressed over military
jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror, panic, screaming, freezing in
place, palpitations, shaking, dizziness, bed wetting, sleep disturbances, nail biting,
anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. References: Goldman B: Sheshatshit, Labrador
A Town without Hope. Can Med Assoc J, 141:602-605,1989.1162 (b)(6) Page 13 of 23.
Bartels K: Medizinische/psychosomatische Auswirkung von lieffluglarm. In Kinder und
Tiefflug. Dokumentation des Expertenforums zu den Auswirkungen des Tieffluglarms auf
Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 18-22, 1989. Preuss S: Militarischer Jiefflug Und Seine
Psychischen Auswirkun gen Auf Kinder. In Kinder und Tiefflug. Dokumentation des
Expertenfonims zu den Auswirkungen des Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp
3-8, 1989. The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children.
Growler noise. Mitigation should include shifting flight patterns to avoid the schools,
playgrounds and ball fields where children play. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2788

Scoping Letter for # 5 Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance One of the pleasures of
living in a quiet rural environment is the quiet nights, offering a chance to hear owls, frogs
in the marsh, or the pleasure of silence that enhances a good night's sleep. I have
enjoyed living on Lopez Island for over 30 years. The Growlers have destroyed the quiet.
At times I awake with alarm at the sudden onslaught of intense sound of the over-flight of
a Growler. It is disconcerting and frightening. We regularly experience jet noise between
8pm and 12 midnight. In the summer the noise can continue until 1am. Research shows
that the indoor threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Our noise journals show that
indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field range from 57 80 dBA. If the low
bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Its unthinkable that the Navy considers
San Juan County and Lopez Island a no significant impact noise area! I feel that living
with the sleep disruptions from the Growlers is affecting my health. References: LeVere
T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking Performance Decrements Following Minimal Sleep
Bioclimatiques due CNRS, France. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. 1) A
extent of this problem. 2) An Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault
field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
2789
Lopez, WA 98261
#6 Alternatives: I have lived on Lopez Island for many years. I have tolerated the
Prowlers from NASWI, but since last year, the training with Growler jets has destroyed
my sense of well being living here. I am a gardener and cannot tolerate being outside
when the Growlers are practicing. If I want to walk on our new National Monument lands
at Iceberg Point they are the predominant sound and disturb all serenity. If Im in the
Village I experience them often with their deafening vibrations. Even at our ferry landing
at the north end their noise is not uncommon. The noise was intrusive there. At night
when the island used to be quiet the hours of blasting and roaring can be heard until late
at night, as is true right this moment at 8:38 pm Jan 6/15. I do not understand why this
EIS does not include an Alternative that would base Growlers somewhere other than
NASWI. .Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires
alternatives. The introduction of the Growler is negatively impacting San Juan County
and the whole region. Alternatives should not be dismissed just because they are higher
in cost or not as efficient. Adding any Growlers to an already significantly affected area is
location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2790
,
Health effects due to Sleep Disturbance: Jet noise during normal sleeping hours must be
studied on Lopez Island and Whidbey Island. Research shows that the indoor threshold
for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Noise journals on Lopez Island show that indoor sound
levels from FCLPs at Ault field range from 57 80 dBA. If the low frequency noise is
measured the sound levels range from 77 100 dBC. Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and
ear protection does not help. Its unthinkable that the Navy considers San Juan County
and Lopez Island a no significant impact noise area! Averaging noise over a year is
useless when youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not average sound. References:
between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2791
Lopez, WA 98261
#6 Alternatives: I have lived on Lopez Island for many years. I have tolerated the
previous Prowler jets, but since the last year and a half, the training with Growlers from
NASWI has truly destroyed my sense of well being living here. I am a gardener, and
cannot tolerate being outside in my garden when the Growlers are practicing. If I want to
walk on our new National Monument lands at Iceberg Point, they are the predominant
sound and force me to end my walk long before I would wish, or abandon the idea of a
walk entirely. If Im in the Village I experience them often with their deafening vibrations.
Even at our ferry landing at the north end their noise is not uncommon. At night when the
island used to be quiet the hours of blasting and roaring can be heard until late at night. I
do not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that would base Growlers
(b)(6)
2792
,
Alternatives: I do not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that would
base Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. .Section 1500.14 of the Council on
Whidbey Island. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2793

Noise Assessment Methods Employed in the EIS I consider that any EIS conducted by
the entity that is being investigated is invalid. The Navy is not a disinterested party and I
do not believe that they can be trusted to create an impartial EIS. Earlier assessments in
2005 and 2012 were technically inaccurate, deliberately excluded important factors and
permitted the people of Lopez no input. It was claimed that Growlers were quieter than
the previous Prowlers. This is ridiculous. I rarely noticed noise from the Prowlers whereas
the Growlers are so noisy that to be outside can be physically painful, and even inside my
house noise disrupts activities and is very stressful and upsetting. I have lived on the
south end of Lopez Island for 14 years. In the last year noise and over-flights from the
Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything I have experienced since moving here. I
chose Lopez as a retirement destination largely because it offered a quiet and tranquil
environment. Now, however, quiet and tranquility have been destroyed by noise, vibration
and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no
significant impact area. This is clearly absurd. My quality of life here has been utterly
destroyed. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs)
was inadequate to support the findings. The Navy must enhance the analysis in order to
of SJC over a one- month period. B. Include C-Weighted sound measurements and
(b)(6)
2794
,
Mitigation: The Navy should be implementing immediate noise mitigations to reduce the
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2795

Scoping Letter for # #6 Alternatives I have lived on Lopez Island for over 30 years. I have
always cherished the quiet. Until the last few years, noise from jets from NASWI has
been occasionally disturbing and alarming. Not true anymore. I now hear them most
everywhere on the island, and can find peaceful moments destroyed by the sudden
assault of an overflight, or the incessant roar of jets at Ault. Even tonight, the noise has
been ntensely disruptive for at least 4 hours non-stop, with no indication of when it will
stop. We never know. We have no place to go to get away from the noise. Now I
experience them all over the Island. My walks at Pt Chadwick in the new National
Monument lands have been totally disrupted by the roar of Growlers, obliterating any
chance to appreciate quiet, or hear the sounds of bird call, or perhaps the sound of an
Orca Whale on the water. These are reasons why I have chosen to live here. They have
been stolen from me by the invasive impact of the Growler noise. The EIS must include
an Alternative that would base Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. .Section 1500.14
of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires that Agencies shall (a)
efficient. Adding more Growlers to an already significantly affected area is unjustified. Our
quality of life has been undermined, land values have been diminished, health effects are
felt, and more. Alternative locations for Growler training and basing are possible. The
citizens of SJC are not "collateral damage" and should be considered significant. The EIS
than NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
2796

Health Effects of Sudden Loud Noises; i.e. the Startle Effect I consider that any EIS
conducted by the entity that is being investigated is invalid. The Navy is not a
disinterested party and I do not believe that they can be trusted to create an impartial
EIS. Lopez Island enjoys a low background noise in the 35-45 dBA range (outdoors).
Growler over-flights routinely expose residents to 90-114 dBA. One of the worst aspects
of this loud noise is the suddenness with which occurs. Sudden loud noise causes a fight
or flight response in human beings. This type of response causes release of adrenaline
which produces nervous, hormonal and vascular changes which are generally accepted
to be detrimental if the body is being constantly exposed to them. To subject a civilian
population to this kind of health damaging noise is outrageous. References: Kryter K:
for all Growler activity. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2797

Health Effects Related to Loss of Control I consider that any EIS conducted by the entity
that is being investigated is invalid. The Navy is not a disinterested party and I do not
believe that they can be trusted to create and impartial EIS. I live on the south end of
Lopez Island. Over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations from Growlers and operation
at Ault Field have eliminated many of the reasons we chose to live on the island. When
the jets are flying the noise is often so intense that conversation stops. Naval Air Station
Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of training operations for Ault Field. As a
booms on rural Americans. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M:
(b)(6)
2798
Lopez, WA 98261
We are long-term residents of San Juan County and are experiencing out-of-scale noise
from jets and are collateral damage of the US Navy. By every real definition, we are
casualties of war. THIS IS UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS, WITH NO
ADDITIONAL GROWLERS AT THE WHIDBEY NAS. Given this situation, we ENTIRELY
CHALLENGE THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE FOR THIS EIS, based on
the faulty previous Environment Assessments in 2005 and 2012. Neither of those EAs
correctly analyzed the effects of bringing the original Growlers to the Whidbey NAS. The
White Houses Council for Environmental Quality regulation 1502, section 14, on
Proposed Alternatives states, In this section agencies shall: (f) Include appropriate
mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. We thus
request that TWO ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS EIS as
follows: 1. All Growlers, including the ones already stationed at Whidbey NAS, should be
removed from the base permanently, or 2. Whidbey NAS should be close permanently.
(b)(6)
2799
,
Economic impacts: The Growlers are changing the quality of life in San Juan County and
Island County. I have friends who camped this summer at Deception Pass State Park.
Despite the incredible beauty of the area, they stated they would never return because
the noise of the Navy jets was an overwhelmingly negative experience. The San Juan
County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of peace.... We support a
pattern of economic growth which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural,
marine and isolated nature of the islands." The quiet and pristine nature of the islands
with its marine protected areas, National Monuments and National Historical Parks
attracts organic agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists, hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer
residents and retirees. How many uncounted visitors have experienced the jet noise and
will never return? Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone increasing the
number of jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property values. The EIS should
Counties. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2800

Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children I consider that any EIS conducted by the entity
that is being investigated is invalid. The navy is not a disinterested party and I do believe
that they can be trusted to create an impartial EIS. In the past jets didnt used to fly over
the school on Lopez and now they do. They also routinely fly over the preschool in Lopez
Village. Growler traffic over my home is definitely affecting my life. What used to be a
quiet peaceful place to live now regularly is filled with the sounds of a war zone. Ear
protection does nothing. My windows vibrate. My body vibrates. I am concerned about
the effects on the children at our school and our preschool. Research shows that children
can be very distressed over military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include:
terror, panic, screaming, freezing in place, palpitations, shaking, dizziness, bed wetting,
sleep disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. References:
Goldman B: Sheshatshit, Labrador A Town without Hope. Can Med Assoc J,
shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2801

Scoping Letter for # 7 Mitigation I have lived in SJC for over 30 years, taking refuge in the
peace and quiet of the rural environment. I can no longer find that refuge. The sound of
the Growlers can invade the quiet at any time, whether for 30 minutes or 6 hours of
non-stop roar. This is unacceptable. It has destroyed our quality of life. The Navy should
shall: ... (f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed
action or alternatives. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly
determined that there was no adverse noise impact from the introduction of the Growlers.
Therefore it was inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. At a minimum the
booklet) should be modified to minimize routes over populated areas, including the south
end of Lopez Island, to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler training flights over
Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely,
(b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
2802

Health Effects of Sleep Disturbance I consider than any EIS conducted by the entity that
is being investigated is invalid. The navy is not a disinterested party and I do not believe
that they can be trusted to create an impartial EIS. I have enjoyed living on Lopez Island
for over 14 years. One of the wonders of living here has been the quiet nights. The
Growlers have destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise between 8pm and 12
midnight. In the summer the noise can continue until 1am and it is my understanding that
there are no restrictions to prevent the Navy from flying 24 hours a day. Research shows
indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field range from 57 80 dBA. If the low
bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Its unthinkable that the Navy considers
San Juan County and Lopez Island a no significant impact noise area! Averaging noise
over a year is useless when youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not average sound.
Living with the sleep disruptions from the Growlers is affecting my health. References:
between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely , (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2803
,
Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments: It appears that both the
2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were deficient and incomplete. The
Growlers were moved to NASWI without a full EIS and without sufficient study of noise
impacts, health consequences, plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and
(b)(6)
2804

Relocation of Growlers to More Appropriate Sites I consider that any EIS conducted by
the entity that is being investigated is invalid. The navy is not a disinterested party and I
do not believe that they can be trusted to create an impartial EIS. Thousands of people
reside within the general area of Ault Field. People can, and do, live with noise but it is
known that noise is unhealthy and that it causes both physical and psychological
damage. The more noise, the more damage. It follows, therefore, that loud and frequent
noise should not be inflicted on the population wherever it can be avoided. Even while
accepting the need for defence readiness I can see no necessity for the Navy to carry out
war-games, training, etc. in a confined and populated area such as this. The Navy has
simply chosen this area for their own convenience with no consideration for the interests
of the existing residents who are paying a heavy price in quality of life, health, property
values and the local economy. I have lived on Lopez Island for 14years. The jets from
NASWI have not bothered me much until this last year. Now I experience them all over
the Island. If I want to walk on our new National Monument lands at Iceberg Point they
are the predominant sound - not birds or waves or sea lions. If Im in the Village I
experience them often with their deafening vibrations. Even at our ferry landing at the
north end their noise is not uncommon. At night, when the island used to be quiet,
blasting and roaring can be heard until late. I do not understand why this EIS does not
include an Alternative that would base Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. .Section
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives. The
introduction of the Growler is negatively impacting San Juan County and the whole
as efficient. Adding any Growlers to an already significantly affected area is unjustified. I
America has millions of acres of uninhabited desert and already has West Coast facilities
at Fallon and at China Lake for example The EIS should fully evaluate one or more
alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Population
density and the previously quiet, rural nature of this area argues against basing such
noisy aircraft here. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2805

Sound Mitigation I consider that any EIS by the entity that is being investigated is invalid.
The Navy is not a disinterested party and I do not believe that they can be trusted to
create an impartial EIS. Having lived on Lopez for 14 years and listened to guests
enthuse about how quiet it is here, I now find myself begging invitations elsewhere in
order to enjoy some peace and quiet. This is beyond anything reasonable. The Navy
should be implementing immediate noise mitigations to reduce the impacts of Growler
action or alternatives. Why has this not been done? I believe that the 2005 and 2012
evaluate noise mitigation. This is an outrageous and very obvious misstatement. Why
were the Growlers even stationed here without constructing a Hush House for the
run-ups? The Navy reached inaccurate conclusions about the local impact of the
Growlers because they inadvertently, or wilfully, failed to do proper and conscientious
EIS in 2005 and 2012. Can we expect than any future EIS will be either complete or
conscientious? At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully considered.
All selected mitigation measures should be included in the Record of Decision (ROD)
along with timelines for completion. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey
Island (map on page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be modified to minimize routes
over populated areas, including the south end of Lopez Island, to the greatest extent
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2806

Economic Impact I retired to Lopez largely because of the quiet and tranquility which it
offered. The Growlers are changing the quality of life in San Juan County. I would never
have bought property here if the Growlers had already been stationed at NASWI. Given
the present situation I would like to sell my property and relocate. I am seriously
concerned that I will be unable to retrieve the investment which I have in my house or,
indeed, even to find a buyer at all. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states,
"...the islands are places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic growth which
discourage visitors and this will severely impact the tourist industry which is a mainstay of
the San Juan Islands economy. It will also discourage retirees and vacation home buyers
thereby reducing property values and further damaging the livelihood of those who reside
here.. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom,
Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Sincerely , (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2807

Invalidity of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments I have been following the
EIS process for the past year. It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental
Assessments were deficient and incomplete. The Growlers were moved to NASWI
without a full EIS and without sufficient study of noise impacts, health consequences,
plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and economic impacts to the region. The
low frequency noise which is the signature noise of the Growler was not even considered.
San Juan County was considered a no significant impact area. Clearly this is not the
case. This EIS should conduct all analyses from the beginning and should not rely on, or
tier off of, the Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments.
Sincerely , (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2808

Scoping Letter for # #8 Economic impacts The Growlers are changing the quality of life in
San Juan County and are severely impacting our economy. The San Juan County
of economic growth ... which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine
and isolated nature of the islands." The San Juan Islands were recently designated as a
National Monument to maintain their historical and cultural significance and enhance
their unique and varied natural and scientific resources, for the benefit of all Americans."
(President Obama) The assault of the Growlers has undermined that designation by
disrupting the peace and quiet, disturbing wildlife, and causing disturbance to locals and
visitors alike. The economy of the San Juans is fragile, primarily dependent on tourism,
real estate and construction. The Growlers threaten tourism and real estate: visitors to
the islands are repelled and frightened by the incessant noise, and real estate prices are
declining. I have been trying to sell my property and have been asked whether the
Growler noise is a problem. Yes, it is!! The value of my land will likely be diminished for
that reason. That is not acceptable. Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone
increasing the number of jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property values,
threatening the economy of SJC. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout
San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties, including studies of the
impact on a) tourism; and b) real estate values. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
2809

Scoping Letter for # 9: Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments I
moved to NASWI without a full EIS and without sufficient study of the very real noise
impacts, health consequences, plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
2810

I support the assignment of additional Growler aircraft to the Whidbey Island Naval Air
Station and I support EWT over the Olympic Peninsula. I believe the top priority should
be best training for the Naval aviators. The oppositions claim of ecological damage is
wrong. The claim that the noise is harming people is false.
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Lopez, WA 98261
#7 Mitigation: As a long time San Juan County resident I am now planning trips to Seattle
to experience quiet. Tonight as I write (1/5/15), it feels impossible to stay in our own
home. I now know what it feels like to be tortured- when something you valued and loved
is being destroyed. My body feels like I'm undergoing a malevolent psychological
experiment at the hands of the Navy. The Navy should be implementing immediate noise
Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely
(b)(6)
2812
Lopez, WA 98261
#7 Mitigation: As a long time San Juan County resident I am now planning trips to Seattle
to experience quiet. Tonight as I write, (January 6th, 2015), it feels impossible to stay in
our own home. I now know what it is like to be tortured- when something you value and
love is being destroyed. My body feels like I am undergoing a malevolent psychological
experiment, at the hands of the Navy. The Navy should be implementing immediate noise
in the Record of Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion. Growler training
Island, to the greatest extent possible. Growler training flights over populated areas
including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. Afterburners should
not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. A Ground Run-up
training engine run-ups and testing. Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures
for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. Notify citizens in advance
of all Growler training operations at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice
(b)(6)
2813

Assessments of Growler Noise It must be noted that this EIS is compromised since it is
conducted by the entity that is being investigated. Despite the legal authority given to the
Navy, only an independent and disinterested expert could produce a credible EIS.
Previous Environmental Assessments in 2005 and 2012 were technically inaccurate and
deliberately excluded important factors. These EA's claimed the Growlers were quieter
than the previous Prowlers, as ludicrous a conclusion as could be imagined for anyone
who has experienced both as I have. I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island for 14
years and rarely noticed the Prowlers. The noise from the Growlers is so extreme that I
often must stay in my house to lessen the damage to my mental and hearing health. And
even inside my own house the Growler noise prevents concentration and disrupts
conversation, causing the whole household to be nervous and angry. The noise rattles
windows and doors inside our home 12 miles away from the source. I have been caught
outside when Growlers have flown over me. I had to retreat indoors. I have never before
in my life experienced noise at that level, not even in turbine halls of power plants which
are notorious for their noise level. These sound assessments should be improved as
follows: Continuous sound measurements must be made in all areas affected especially
in southern San Juan County and any computer simulations used must be calibrated by
these measurements. The measurements must include the C-weighting which includes
low-frequency sound which shakes my house ten miles from Ault field for 12 hours per
day. Any analysis must include the effect of the short term high and peak level noise from
the Growlers which are greatly disruptive, startling and have an adverse psychological
effect long after the sound itself recedes. Since afterburners are apparently used in the
overflights, sound measurements must include flights with afterburners turned on or
better, pledge not to use the afterburners at all for training flights in this area. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2814

Health Effects Related to Startle Reaction from Growler Training It must be noted that
this EIS is compromised since it is conducted by the entity that is being investigated.
Despite the legal authority given to the Navy, only an independent and disinterested
expert could produce a credible EIS. San Juan County has a low background noise of 35
45 dBA (outside). County residents are routinely exposed 90 114 dBA (outside) blasts
of noise from Growler over flights and operations at Ault Field resulting in startle
reactions. This noise is perceived subconsciously by the human body as a danger signal.
The body reacts with fight or flight response with resultant nervous, hormonal and
vascular changes. The jet noise experienced is not unlike the noise of an earthquake, a
strong wind or a chimney fire. Research shows that humans do not become accustomed
to repeated noise at this level. It is outrageous to subject the civilian population to noise
at this level. If this is being protected by the Navy, I would rather someone protected us
from the Navy. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of
Noise (pub 1115), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, pp. 535545, 1984. Hall, FL., Birnie, SE, Taylor, SM, Palmer, JE: Direct Comparison of
Conduct medical surveys on the impacted populations including San Juan County.
Effective and adequate mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2815

Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance It must be noted that this EIS is compromised
since it is conducted by the entity that is being investigated. Despite the legal authority
given to the Navy, only an independent and disinterested expert could produce a credible
EIS. I have enjoyed living on Lopez Island for many years. One of the wonders of living
here has been the quiet nights and being able to hear all the night sounds and sleeping
peacefully. The Growlers have destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise between
8pm and 12 midnight. In the summer the noise can continue until 1am. Research shows
indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field range from 5780 dBA. If the low frequency
noise is measured the sound levels range from 77 100 dBC. Windows rattle, bodies
vibrate and ear protection does not help. Its unthinkable that the Navy considers San
Juan County and Lopez Island a no significant impact noise area! Averaging noise over
a year is useless when youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not average sound. I feel
that living with the sleep disruptions from the Growlers is affecting my health. References:
LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: W aking Performance Decrements Following Minimal
Sleep Description: The Effects of Habituation during Sleep, Physiological Psychology,
Noise-Disturbed Sleep since 1973. In Proceedings of the Third International Congress on
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2816

1/6/15 The fact you have been flying the growler revving the engines almost constantly
today I find this a tactic to intimidate and torment the communities - Where can we go.
This will put human lives over the edge I am exhausted by the endurance of just being
here today My home and property absorbed this noise and vibration magnitude due to its
location to the base I am completely traumatized at this late hour 13 hours of the growlers
I am chronically ill already that my issue is becoming grave as to my choices of survival
during your training activities. I do not have any understanding of what is the incentive
behind flying in close proximity to my home Have any of your board members spent time
here to listen to the growlers I would expect another response from me to request
thorough response to the environment studies requirement Tonight I am swollen with
impact from todays flight actions
(b)(6)
2817

Effect of Growlers on School Children It must be noted that this EIS is compromised
since it is conducted by the entity that is being investigated. Despite the legal authority
given to the Navy, only an independent and disinterested expert could produce a credible
EIS. The jets didnt used to fly over the Lopez Island School and now they do. They also
routinely fly over the preschool in Lopez Village. Growler traffic over my home is definitely
affecting my life. What used to be a quiet peaceful place to live now regularly is filled with
the sounds of a war zone. Ear protection does nothing. My windows vibrate. My body
vibrates. I am concerned about the effects on the children at our school and our
flights. This results in behavior in children that may include: terror, panic, screaming,
Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 18-22, 1989. Preuss S: Militarischer Tiefflug
Bonn, June 12, pp 3 -8, 1989. The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler
responses to Growler Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2818

Alternatives It must be noted that this EIS is compromised since it is conducted by the
entity that is being investigated. Despite the legal authority given to the Navy, only an
independent and disinterested expert could produce a credible EIS. Thousands of people
reside within the general area of Ault Field. People can live with occasional and lower
level noise but noise on this level is not tolerable in such a densely populated area. I
understand the need for defense readiness but I dont see the necessity of such
extensive war games activity and training in such a confined and populated area as this.
We don't face any major military threat now and for the foreseeable future. The Navy has
simply commandeered our area for their convenience. The Navy does not consider the
interests of the residents and we the taxpayers pay heavily in quality of life and property
values. I have lived on Lopez Island for many years. The jets from NASWI have not
bothered me much until this last year. Now I experience them all over the Island. If I want
to walk on our new National Monument lands at Iceberg Point they are the predominant
sound -not birds or waves or sea lions. If Im in the Village I experience them often with
their deafening vibrations. At night when the island used to be quiet the hours of blasting
and roaring can be heard until very late. I do not understand why this EIS does not
include an Alternative that would base Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. .Section
as efficient. Adding any Growlers to an already significantly affected area is unjustified. I
America has millions of acres of uninhabited desert and already has West coast Naval Air
facilities at Fallon and China Lake for example. The EIS should fully evaluate one or
more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Such
frequent and loud jet training must be moved to a less populated area. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2819

Mitigation of Growler Noise As a long time San Juan County resident I am now look
forward to trips to Seattle to experience quiet. This is ridiculous. The Navy should be
implementing immediate noise mitigation to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training
flights on citizens throughout the region including San Juan County. In preparing an
alternatives. I believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly
Therefore it was assumed inappropriate to evaluate noise mitigation. This is a gross and
obvious misstatement. Why were the Growlers stationed here without constructing a
Hush House for the run-ups? It was because of the grossly inaccurate conclusions about
local impact from the invalid early EA's. At a minimum the following mitigation measures
must be fully considered. All selected mitigation measures should be included in the
Record of Decision (ROD) along with time lines for completion. a)Growler training flight
paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be
Island, to the greatest extent possible b)Growler training flights over populated areas
including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c)Afterburners should
not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. d)A Ground Run-up
training engine run-ups and testing. e)Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures
for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. f)Notify citizens in advance
(FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches(CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2820
Lopez, WA 98261
#8 Economic impacts My parents bought property here in 1960 and I moved here in 1983
because of the beauty and the quiet. I did know of Whidbey Naval Air Station and learned
to live with the impact of aircraft training. However, the Growlers have changed the
quality of life in San Juan County. Our property and all of the work we have put into our
home feels without value in a sacrificial war zone. It is ironic that just south of us is the
new National Monument and we who live here are considered collateral damage. The
San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of peace.... We
summer residents and retirees. We have talked to visitors who have experienced the jet
noise and have stated that they will never return. Continuation of the current level of jet
noise, let alone increasing the number of jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property
values. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom,
Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2821

Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments I have been following the
EIS process for the past year. It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental
Assessments were deficient and incomplete. The Growlers were moved to NASWI
without a full EIS and without sufficient study of noise impacts, health consequences,
plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and economic impacts to the region. The
low frequency noise which is the signature noise of the Growler was not even considered.
San Juan County was considered a no significant impact area. Clearly this is not the
case. The civilian residents affected by the Growler noise form NASWI never had an
opportunity to comment on the previous EA's which were simply presented as a fait
accompli and I am sorry to say accepted by the Navy despite all their faults. This EIS
should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or base any new
assessments on the Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments. Sincerely,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2822

Economic impacts We moved here because of the beauty and the quiet. The Growlers
are radically changing the quality of life in San Juan County and the whole region in the
North Puget Sound. We would never have bought property here if we had experienced
the intrusive noise from NASWI. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states,
discourage visitors and reduce property values. There will be less growth and the
associated increase in wealth of the area and fewer taxes paid. NASWI is also using the
Olympic Peninsula and Olympic National Park for war games . This will destroy another
reason to live in this area. The other National Parks and public lands may be
commandeered for use by NASWI, adding to the damage. The EIS should address
economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island
Counties. Sincerely,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2823

Health Effects Related to Loss of Control of Their Lives It must be noted that this EIS is
compromised since it is conducted by the entity that is being investigated. Despite the
legal authority given to the Navy, only an independent and disinterested expert could
produce a credible EIS. Residents of San Juan County experience Growler jet noise at all
times of the day and night. The noise ranges from 65 110 dBA and 75 124 dBC
(inside) and is the result of low level over flights, engine testing and training operations.
(FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). It is also essential to eliminate
inessential flights in night time hours. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2824
Lopez, WA 98261
#8 Economic impacts: I built a modest cabin home on the south end of Lopez Island in
1973, and subsequently built additions, and completed remodels over the years. Our
current house, out buildings and property comprise our single major financial investment
in our economic future. If we are forced to sell our home and property because of the
shattering effects of noise from Whidbey NAS Growler operations, we will lose all we
have invested in our property and home. The Growlers have changed the quality of life in
San Juan County. I would never recommend that anyone buy land on Lopez, due to the
destructive noise from NASWI. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the
islands are places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic growth which
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2825

As I walked through my beloved forest near my home on the south end of Lopez Island
trying to listen to the birds sing as Navy jets roared overhead shattering my peace and
that of all the other inhabitants of this unique place I realized more than ever that this has
to change. Hopefully this EIS will point the way for positive change in the overwhelming
din that this island is subjected to by the Growler jet. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012
(b)(6)
2826

We fully support expanding the Navy growler pilots training program to include electronic
warfare trading time over the Olympic Peninsula where my family is one of the Sequim
Dungeness pioneer families.Opponents have no scientific basis for their
positions-commercial airplanes expend more carbon than growlers- are they opposing all
airflights?? Noise is not a source of injury to wildlife for the OP area! We want our military
to be well trained and geographically able to complete those sessions close to their home
base as the fiscally responsible action plan.we urge the APPROVAL of the proposed EIS
(b)(6)
2827
Lopez, WA 98261
#9 Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments: I have been following
(b)(6)
2828
Lopez, WA 98261
#9 Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments: I have been following
Assessments. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2829

As I walked through my beloved forest near my home on the south end of Lopez Island
trying to listen to the birds sing as Navy jets roared overhead shattering my peace and
that of all the other inhabitants of this unique place I realized more than ever that this has
to change. Hopefully this EIS will point the way for positive change in the overwhelming
din that this island is subjected to by the Growler jet and return Lopez Island to its
residents in its' peaceful pre-Growler quiet. The San Juan Islands are a designated
National Scenic Area, not a military training ground. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012
2829
(b)(6)
2830

It is time the forests, fields, and beaches were return to the residents of Lopez Island in
the condition of peace and quiet that the majority of the residents value about everything.
San Juan County has a low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside). County residents
are routinely exposed 90 114 dBA (outside) blasts of noise from Growler over flights
and operations at Ault Field resulting in startle reactions. This noise is perceived
Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity.
(b)(6)
2831

Recently I was volunteering in the first grade classroom at Lopez School when a Growler
went roaring over the school loud and low. The teacher had to give up trying to keep the
student's attention...it was too loud to hear her speak. The children were distressed and
holding their hands over their ears. It was a defining moment....why would these students
be subjected to this purposefully? This is rural Washington, not the Middle East. No
Children anywhere should be subjected to this. On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely fly
over our school in the middle of the island and over Lopez Village where our Preschool
and Childrens Center is located. Research shows that children can be very distressed
over military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror, panic, screaming,
(b)(6)
2832

The population of the San Juan Islands is 5 times what it was in 1970. These islands are
designated as a National Scenic Area and are home to many unique endangered and/or
federally protected species. Damage to inhabitants, both human and other species by the
unrelenting deafening noise from the Navy needs to be stopped and the whole affair of
Growler training moved to a much less inhabited and ecologically fragile site. The
Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States: The alternatives include variations of the
following factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to be purchased 2. Number of aircraft
(b)(6)
2833
Santa Fe, NM 87506

deficient in the following areas: Analysis Human health consequences Alternatives
Mitigation Economic consequences This EIS should conduct all analysis from the
2833
(b)(6)
2835
1. The scoping process for this EIS should return to the initial question of the impact of
replacing the EA 6B Prowler with the EA18G Growler. This is because the original 2005
EA that evaluated and this action and found No Significant Impact failed to adequately
address or notify the public of the potential impact. The EA consistently stated that the
Growlers were quieter than the Prowlers, and replacement would have a positive impact
on the noise environment (result in less exposure of the community to harmful noise)
and this was not correct. The alternatives considered in the EA only took into
consideration changes to buildings, not potential health, safety and economic impact from
the operations. This means that the public was not properly informed of the potential
impact(s) of the EA 18G, and never had a proper opportunity to comment and influence
approval of this action. 2. The scoping process for this EIS should not rely on the
computer modeling, DNL, Calendar Year, averaging method of measuring noise impact.
This method is not an appropriate measurement of the actual impacts being experienced
and reported in the community. Measurement and monitoring must include the frequency,
intensity and duration of (repeated) extreme sound events, under actual conditions, from
a variety of impacted locations. These need to be reported and addressed in the EIS. 3.
The scoping process for this EIS should identify and provide a proper comparison of
alternatives to basing the EA 18G Growler at Whidbey Island NAS. The EIS alternatives
include only options for expanding the Growler operations on Whidbey. Alternatives
should include retaining the Growler operation at NAS Whidbey, but moving the FLCP
touch and go training operations to locations where this could be done safely and there
would be reduced or eliminated community impact, especially to human health and
safety, from harmful noise levels. 4. The scoping process for this EIS should include all
related activities of the EA 18G program at NAS Whidbey, such as the testing of the
Growlers electronic weapon technology that is occurring on the Olympic Peninsula. It
should not break the operation into separate actions, or separate agencies, for review.
This is because NEPA intends that related elements of projects should not be considered
separately, as this can obscure the full, cumulative impact of a project. 5. The scoping
process for the EIS should identify a specific area or areas of potential effect from
Growler overflights and FLCP touch and go landing practice, and provide a commitment
that these identified areas will remain intact and not expand. It is not possible to properly
comment on scope when the potential effect for the action is undefined and could easily
change after the NEPA process. 6. Instead of allowing Growler use to continue until the
EIS assessment is completed, it should be halted until appropriate monitoring and
measurement prove that it will not harm citizens or the affected communities.
(b)(6)
2836
Lopez, WA 98261
*Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a
one-month period. Include C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS.
*The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements including Sound
throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County. *Sound measurement and
flights.
(b)(6)
2837

I have lived and worked in Clallam county for 27 years and have noticed an increase in
military jet noise in that time. I have worked for both the National Forest Service and the
Natural Park Service and am now employed as a registered nurse and I have a vacation
rental. I am concerned over the increased noise and military presence in this quiet,
special part of the world. I have had the experience of hiking in the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest and had a military jet fly over at low altitude (~300 ft agl), which was
terrifying as it was unexpected. I also have hearing loss and required the need for
hearing aids at the age of 45. I believe this single unprotected exposure was a
contributing factor to this hearing loss. For every three decibels over 85, the permissible
exposure time before hearing damage can occur is cut in half. For older Navy jets flying
at 1000 ft (113 db), that exposure time is less than one minute. As the jet I was exposed
to was flying much lower than 1000ft, I can only assume that my exposure was greater
than 113db. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health Due to these considerations, the Navy EIS for the
Growler should study the following: A. Conduct continuous sound measurements in
affected areas for one month and not rely solely on computer modeling. B. Include
of events that exceed 60dB SEL and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted
areas where overflights occur. D. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. E. The EIS should conduct all
analysis from the beginning and should not rely on the analysis and records of decision
for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessment. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2838

I own a vacation rental property in Clallam County. As a business owner who relies on
tourism, I have concerns for degradation the sound environment which attracts people to
this area. Nearly all the comments I receive regarding my vacation rental mention how
quiet it is. Increased noise from increased Naval training flights will impact this
experience of quiet and decrease tourism to this area, which is a major economic driver
in Clallam County. Due to this concern, the EIS should include the following. A. The EIS
needs to Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives
(section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations), to having the
entire Growler fleet stationed at Whidbey Island. B. The EIS should address economic
impacts throughout all fly over areas, including Clallam County. C. The EIS should
include analysis of environmental, economic, and cultural impacts of proposed Electronic
Warfare Training on the Olympic Peninsula and not separate the expansion of the
Growler fleet from intended training and use of that fleet and its impact on surrounding
communities. Sincerely,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2839

KWIAHT is a nonprofit conservation biology laboratory located in and serving the San
Juan Islands, WA. Our research team, which includes over 150 local volunteers as well
as professional scientists, focuses on gaps in our knowledge of island ecosystems that
bear on resource management decisions. We collaborate with relevant federal agencies,
such as NOAA-NMFS, National Parks, and in connection with the new National
Monument in the islands, the Bureau of Land Management, with which we have an
ongoing contractual relationship for science and public outreach. The south coast of
Lopez Island, over which Navy Growler training has been conducted, is of particular
interest to us. KWIAHT has several long-term monitoring and study sites on federal
conservation lands on south Lopez, including nearshore Chinook salmon food web
research at Watmough Bight, and terrestrial succession and seabird surveys at Point
Colville and Iceberg Point. We also conduct periodic plant and wildlife surveys of small
outlying islets that form part of the National Monument. Our teams are on the ground or
on the water, beneath the airspace utilized by Growlers, at least 60 days per year. About
half of this time, we are documenting bird species. Often there are Growlers overhead. I
have personally been on protected federal lands conducting research a number of times
when Growlers passed overhead. On several occasions, aircraft were flying so low over
National Monument lands that I could clearly see the individual pods beneath the wings
without my glasses (certainly below 1000 feet altitude), and had to shout to continue my
conversation with a fellow researcher. On other occasions, aircraft were operating above
cloud cover at sufficient altitude to produce little more noise than the occasional civilian
prop aircraft we observe over these coastal areas. We recently equipped our seabird
teams with a sound pressure meter so they can make precise measurements of peak
noise levels in such events. They will also document any observable response of
seabirds. This is not systematic research at the level that Navy environmental
assessments should meet, however. There have been few rigorous studies of the
impacts of aircraft operation on seabirds. To make matters worse, researchers have been
looking at different kinds of aircraft, different operating conditions, and different seabird
species. And they have used different criteria for a response by the birds and for
impact. Results of extant studies range from high impacts (using criteria such as chick
survival rates) to no impacts. All that we can say with certainty at this stage is that some
seabird species react strongly to some kinds of aircraft operation, depending on noise
levels, altitudes, aircraft profiles (e.g. do they look like raptors), what the birds are doing
(nesting, resting, foraging), and the frequency, pattern, and persistence of the
disturbance. There are no reliable data for the situation we find on the south coast of
Lopez, with its particular combination of alcid seabirds (especially our endangered
Marbled Murrelets) foraging and some also nesting, and Growler operation at the
altitudes and frequencies currently involved, or proposed. I wish to emphasize that we
are not dealing here with general concerns about noise that people find unpleasant or
disruptivealthough as a Lopez resident I can confirm that it is unpleasant to have
aircraft circling overhead producing over 90 dB, especially at night. But our concern as
conservation scientists is with federally protected species on federal conservation lands
set aside for those species. The Navy can move its operations where they may conflict
less with threatened and endangered species on protected lands. Or the Navy can
sponsor research to test its assertion that there are no adverse impacts. We believe that
Growler operation is inconsistent with the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan, and that at a
minimum an independent study of Growler impacts on nesting and foraging seabirds in
the National Wildlife Refuge and the National Monument is required by the laws
governing these protected areas. As scientists, we do not pre-judge the results of such a
study, which could find that current Growler operations have no measurable adverse
impacts on protected species. However, based on our scientific experience here in the
islands and our understanding of the extant research literature on aircraft noise and
low-flying aircraft in relation to seabirds, we are confident in saying that, without actual
data on existing operational impacts, any assertion by the Navy regarding future impacts
(in particular, a FONSI) is pure speculation. We will be happy to assist Navy
environmental personnel in whatever ways we can here in the islands.
2839
(b)(6)
2840
Lopez, WA 98261
*Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a
(b)(6)
2841
Lummi Island, WA 98262

I live on Lummi Island. I don't even visit Deception Pass State Park anymore because the
Navy jet noise is deafening. Thank you for ruining a pristine park. I have been following
even considered. This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not
rely on, or tier off of, the Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments. By splitting up the issues and leveraging off of previous EISs, the Navy
has been deliberatly obfuscating the issues. For example, the environmental assessment
for the mobile emitters in the Olympic forest doesn't even consider the noise of the
Growlers, only of generators in the emitters themselves. And this EA references and
relies on a previous EIS where absolutely no mention was made of the mobile emitters.
For example, in the referenced EIS document, mention is made of possibly installing a
fixed emitter at Pacific Beach or some other coastal location. Pacific Beach, Washington
is one potential location for a fixed land based electronic warfare (EW) emitter. This
location, or a similar site on the Washington coast, would allow EC training at sea for
ships, submarines, and aircraft.... [p. 2-29, NWTRC EIS 2010; this is the only reference
to the tower in the entire document]. The EA then says the tower was approved in the
2010 EIS, yet an environmental assessment of the tower itself was NEVER done. The
Navy is either extremely sloppy, or deleberately sidestepping. The Navy should write a
separate, stand-alone EIS for the entire growler/mobile emitter training program over the
entire area of impact. Then the public can comment without all this confusion.
(b)(6)
2842
Please combine all current open EA, EIS for the State of Washington.
(b)(6)
2843

There are so many Growlers prowling across our sky that I would have to go to the
reporting website at least a dozen times some days to tell you about them all. I would like
to just live my days in peace and quiet and not be startled out of myself that many times a
day. Thank you for listening.
(b)(6)
2844
Considering the potential long-term environmental and socioeconomical impacts of the
air, land, and sea operations identified in this Navy EIS, an independent, EXTERNAL
environmental impact statement is more than warranted. Conclusions of "no significant
impact" should at least be accompanied by more recent, detailed peer-reviewed studies.
My years of experience as an AELW Officer in jet aircraft won't allow me to take this draft
EIS seriously without a complete, non-military assessment.
(b)(6)
2845

January 7, 2015 EA-18 Growler EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Atlantic 6506 Hampton Blvd. Norfolk, Virginia 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS
Dear Project Manager: The San Juan County Council is the administrative and policy
body for San Juan County. Our county line is closer to NAS Whidbey than Anacortes, WA
or OLF Coupeville. Our islands have been heavily impacted by excessive noise and
flyovers since the introduction of the EA-18G Growlers. We believe the following items
should be included in the EIS for this project: Conduct continuous sound measurements
on the south ends of Lopez and San Juan Islands for a 30 day period. The Growlers
operate with a distinct low frequency rumble which penetrates walls and travels further
than the Prowlers. Analysis of the sound should include C weighted measurements
(dBC) in the field and computer modeled. A-weighted measurement filters out much of
the low frequency noise which the Growlers produce. Determine the effectiveness of
acoustic mitigation walls such as those used at the end of runways in major airports
located close to city centers. An example is Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, California.
Determine if flying at an altitude 3000 feet would lessen the noise experienced on the
ground or just make a wider envelope. Require General Electric to submit proposals of
ways to suppress or disperse the Growler engine noise without compromising
performance. An example are fins at the rear of the engine Conduct economic impact
analysis specifically for San Juan County of the impacts of the increased Growler
operations. Before any additional Growlers are deployed at NAS Whidbey we believe
mitigation measures should be taken to lessen the impact currently imposed on the
citizens of San Juan County. Conduct actual noise tests including C weighted on the
South end of Lopez and San Juan Islands during Ault field engine maintenance testing
and flight operations. Construct an acoustic mitigation hangar known as a hush house
at NASWI. During aircraft approaches require pilots to keep gear up until needed.
Alter approach patterns to minimize aircraft over land. We look forward to you
considering these items during you EIS process. Best regards, COUNTY COUNCIL SAN
JUAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON Jamie Stephens, Member District No. 3 Rick Hughes,
Chair District No. 2 Bob Jarman, Vice Chair District No. 1
(b)(6)
2846
Lopez, WA 98261
Please conduct continuous sound measurements in all on each island, but particularly
the southern tips of all the San Juan Islands over at least a one month period. Include C
Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. The EIS should document the
number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5 dB increments throughout the
impacted areas of San Juan County. The noise can be UNBEARABLE.
(b)(6)
2847

In due respect that the contribution our armed forces make to national security I would
like to reflect the reality of the effect of the growler operations on my home and living
environment. Is would be difficult to exaggerate the intensity of the low frequency
rumbling that is present on the south end of Lopez. It is not a distant noise. It is unclear to
me whether there is perhaps more kind of cross water amplification but the noise from
engine testing and run-ups is extremely disturbing. My entire house shakes. There is
nothing pleasant or reassuring about this rumble. It is disturbing, unsettling, fear
producing. If you believe that I am exaggerating then I invite you to come to my home on
a day these operations are taking place. It would be absurd for me to think of this din as
normal and to think I could adjust to continued increases. It is already unacceptable in my
opinion as a homeowner and resident of Lopez Island. I believe all efforts must be made
to mitigate the current situation with new operation protocols, sound barriers, engine
testing houses, whatever it takes. I am adamantly opposed to an increase in the number
of jets and operations. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2848

Thanks for being there for us, and your dedication to our well-being and wonderful nation.
My wife and I have been coming to Shaw Island since 1970 and have owned property
here since 1979. We hand built our own home starting 1987, for a two-year period. We
raised our two daughters here, that went to Friday Harbor in their own boat for school.
The Growler aircraft is out of context with the peaceful environment we came here to
enjoy and pay for with very hard earned dollars. You hardly ever noticed the A-6 and
other previous aircraft at Whidbey Is. Naval Air Station. Presently, there is at times:
constant thundering of jet engines from Whidbey for hours at a time and all hours of the
day and night. You can feel the vibration in your chest, and hear the loud noise in all
parts of our otherwise peaceful quiet home, of which we pay very dear taxes to enjoy. I
would like to ask the Navy to conduct the following: Conduct continuous sound
measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period. Include C
Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. The EIS analysis should
areas including San Juan County. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. The noise from the Growlers,
and yet to arrive 737's are unbearable. Please consider relocating these aircraft to a
more suitable air base. At minimum, Engine Test Hush Houses pointing out the Straits of
Juan de Fuca, No afterburners, Limit Exercises to facilitate Peace and Quiet, and listen to
your neighbors concerns and well being. This impact is new and it is huge. What is
considering Life Threatening? Or is going crazy from constant Jet Engine noise Life
Threatening? In addition, San Juan County should be a no-fly zone. No matter what, stay
in contact with your neighbors and their needs. Your impact is already cumbersome, and
very difficult to manage on a daily keeping sane basis. Thanks in advance for your most
serious consideration! Regards, (b)(6)
, Shaw Island, WA.
(b)(6)
2849

We have lived on the south end of Lopez Island since 1984. We have always lived with
the noise from NAS Whidbey Island, but this past year with the Growlers has become
intolerable. Although analysis were made they were inadequate to support the findings.
The EIS should study the following: 1. Conduct continuous sound measurements in the
southern portion of San Juan County over a one month period; 2. Include c-weighted
sound measurements and analysis in the EIS; 3. The EIS analysis should incorporate
supplemental noise measurements including sound exposure level and peak sound level
in addition to Ldn. Document the projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB
SEL and Lmax in 5 dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan
County; 4. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include after-burners or
the Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the Record of Decision (ROD) to not
use afterburners in training flights. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2850

#1 Analysis Ive live in Lopez Village for two years and have been protected from the
worst of the Growler noise by an accident of geography. However, I am appalled that my
distant neighbors must experience it, as I do when I go to the south end of Lopez. The
Navy believes San Juan County is a no significant impact area for its testing noise. This
is clearly false. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments
(b)(6)
2851

We live on the south end of Lopez Island. We love living here and appreciate what
serenity we can have being on a Navy flight path. The Growlers in the past year have
brought a whole new meaning to having jets fly over. The noise is so loud it not only
shakes the windows, you can't even carry on a conversation in the house until they have
passed over. It's not only startling, it's frightening! The EIS should address the health
effects of Startle Reactions. Medical surveys should be conducted on the impacted
activity.
(b)(6)
2852

#2 Health Effects Related to Startle Reaction from Growler Training: Ive live in Lopez
Village for two years and work from home. Ive been protected from the worst of the
Growler noise only by an accident of geography. However, I am appalled that my distant
neighbors must experience it, as I do when I go to the south end of Lopez. The noise,
even at a distance, can be horrible, especially because it can last all day. By its sudden,
unscheduled loudness, it can cause me to jump unexpectedly. The EIS should address
the health effects of Startle Reactions. Medical surveys should be conducted on the
impacted populations including San Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for all
Growler activity. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2853

Dear Navy Officials: I am from Port Townsend. I hear Growlers frequently, often late at
night and early in the morning. I know that these flights are taking off and landing right
over my neighbors heads on Whidbey Island. I have had to cut short the use of
Deception State Park due to incessant noise from jets circling the area repeatedly. You
have received tons of highly technical information from people far more qualified than I to
comment on your scoping questions. I feel we are being assaulted on land, sea and air
by Navy maneuvers. I believe these EAs and EISes should not have been segmented: 1.
The EA for proposed ground-based activities in the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare
Range, including electronic war games in the Olympic National Forest; 2. This EIS on the
Navys proposed addition of 36 EA-18G Growler jets to its fleet of 82 Growlers already
stationed at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island; 3. The Supplemental Draft, to the January
2014 EIS called Northwest Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, a proposal to expand sonar and
explosive activities in the training zone to include the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the waters
off Indian Island, Puget Sound, and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which
consists of 2,408 square nautical miles of Olympic Peninsula coastline. What I have to
say is please, do the right thing for our rural communities and for all life in our region and
beyond. Stop threatening our neighbors and our natural world. I strongly support the No
Action Alternative featured at the Growler scoping meeting in Port Townsend. Thank
you. Sincerely, Deborah Wiese cc. Rep. Derek Kilmer, Sen. Patty Murray, Sen. Maria
Cantwell
(b)(6)
2854

We have lived on the far sound end of Lopez Island for many years. The blasts of noise
and vibrations from Growlers and operations at Ault Field are degrading many of the
reasons we chose to live on the island. When the jets are flying the noise is often so
intense that conversation stops. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2855

Dear Navy Officials: I am from Port Townsend. I hear Growlers frequently, often late at
night and early in the morning. I know that these flights are taking off and landing right
over my neighbors heads on Whidbey Island. I have had to cut short the use of
Deception State Park due to incessant noise from jets circling the area repeatedly. You
have received tons of highly technical information from people far more qualified than I to
comment on your scoping questions. I feel we are being assaulted on land, sea and air
by Navy maneuvers. I believe these EAs and EISes should not have been segmented: 1.
The EA for proposed ground-based activities in the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare
Range, including electronic war games in the Olympic National Forest; 2. This EIS on the
Navys proposed addition of 36 EA-18G Growler jets to its fleet of 82 Growlers already
stationed at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island; 3. The Supplemental Draft, to the January
2014 EIS called Northwest Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, a proposal to expand sonar and
explosive activities in the training zone to include the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the waters
off Indian Island, Puget Sound, and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which
consists of 2,408 square nautical miles of Olympic Peninsula coastline. What I have to
say is please, do the right thing for our rural communities and for all life in our region and
beyond. Stop threatening our neighbors and our natural world. I strongly support the No
Action Alternative featured at the Growler scoping meeting in Port Townsend. Thank
you. Sincerely, (b)(6)
cc. Rep. Derek Kilmer, Sen. Patty Murray, Sen. Maria
Cantwell
(b)(6)
2856

#3 Health Effects Related to Loss of Control Ive live in Lopez Village for two years and
been protected from the worst of the Growler noise only by an accident of geography.
However, I am appalled that my distant neighbors must experience it, as I do when I go
to the south end of Lopez. The noise, even at a distance, can be horrible. By its sudden,
unscheduled loudness, it can cause me to be startled unexpectedly. Over-flights and
blasts of noise and vibrations from Growlers and operation at Ault Field are degrading
many of the reasons I chose to live on the island. When Ive visited the south end of the
island and the jets are flying, the noise is often so intense that conversation stops. But
even in my neighborhood, it can be deafening. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not
publish a schedule of training operations for Ault Field. As a consequence, residents
never know if a blast of noise is going to be a single 30 second event or the beginning of
3 hours of noise from training. This severely affect quality of life, use of property and has
health consequences. Surveys show that loss of control over ones life is one of the most
(b)(6)
Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2857
Victoria, V8S 1L5

We can most certainly hear the Growlers on the Southern part of Vancouver Island.
(b)(6)
2858

We are southenders on Lopez Island, WA and are very concerned about the effects on
the children at our school and our preschool. Research shows that children can be very
distressed over military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror, panic,
screaming, freezing in place, palpitations, shaking, dizziness,bed wetting, sleep
disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. We also have
observed elders reacting in terror at the sudden Growler noise. The EIS should
specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children. Parents,teachers and children
should be questioned about behavioral responses to Growler noise. Mitigation should
include shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village.
(b)(6)
2859

I am opposed to an increase in the numbers of Growler aircraft stationed at N.A.S.
Whidbey Island, as this would increase the use of O.L.F Coupeville. The area around
O.L.F. Coupeville was once predominantly rural, but has now grown into an area with
many private homes. An increase in the use the O.L.F. would expose area residents to
more extremely loud and potentially harmful noise. The time to protect O.L.F. Coupeville
was thirty years ago. The issue has been discussed before, but the responsible
governmental agencies have failed to sufficiently restrict residential construction in areas
of harmful noise levels that are associated with the use of O.L.F. Coupeville. A striking
example of this lack of planning would be the community known as Admirals Cove, which
is just south of the O.L.F. This area is severely impacted by air field use. Incredibly, new
construction has continued over the decades, limited only be market forces, water supply,
and a sewage system. Because of the increase in the number of residents now in the
noise zone around O.L.F. Coupeville I oppose any increase in the use of this airfield,
outside of situational episodes.
(b)(6)
2860

#4 Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children I live in Lopez Village near the preschool and
can say the jets routinely fly over it loudly and often. Growler traffic over my home is not
as bad as in the south end of the Island, but its bad enough and definitely affecting my
life. What used to be a quiet peaceful place to live now regularly is filled with the sounds
of a war zone. I am concerned about the effects on the children at our school and our
flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror, panic, screaming, freezing in place,
elevation of blood pressure. The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler
Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. Sincerely(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2861

We have enjoyed living on the south end of Lopez Island since the 80s. We live and work
here. One of the wonders of living here has been the quiet nights the wind and all the
night sounds. The Growlers have destroyed this peacefulness. We regularly experience
jet noise between 8pm and 12 midnight. In the summer the noise can continue until 1am,
and disruption from the Growlers, our loss of sleep is affecting our health. The EIS should
developed and studied. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2862

#5 Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance I have loved living on Lopez Island for 2
years one of the best reasons has been the quiet nights and hearing the waves, the
sea lions, the wind and all the night sounds. The Growlers are destroying this for most of
us, even people like me who live in the Village. Research shows that the indoor threshold
for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. The noise in the south end show that indoor sound levels
protection does not help. Its unthinkable that the Navy considers San Juan County and
Lopez Island a no significant impact noise area! Averaging noise over a year is useless
when youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not average sound. I feel that living with the
sleep disruptions from the Growlers is affecting the health of my friends in the south end
of the island. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the
study area including San Juan County should document the extent of this problem. An
hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2863

We've lived on the south end of Lopez Island since the 1980s. We have lived with the jet
noise all these years, and until this past year, it's been obnoxious, but tolerable as it didn't
seem to go on for so long. Why does this EIS not include an Alternative that would base
Growlers somewhere other than NASWI? Section 1500.14 of the Council on
(b)(6)
2864

As long time residents of Lopez Island, WA, we feel the Navy should be implementing
immediate noise mitigations to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on
citizens throughout the region including San Juan County. In preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) the Council on Environmental Quality regulation 1502, section 14
on Proposed Alternatives states, In this section agencies shall: ... (f) Include appropriate
mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. We
believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly determined that
there was no adverse noise impact from the introduction of the Growlers. Therefore it
modified to minimize routes over populated areas,including the south end of Lopez
Island,to the greatest extent possible; b)Growler training flights over populated areas
including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation; c)Afterburners should
not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget Sound; d) A Ground Run-up
training engine run-ups and testing; e)Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures
for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers; f)Notify citizens in advance
of all Growler training operations at either airfield including Field C arrier Landing Practice
(FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches(CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2865

We live on the south end of Lopez Island and were once able to appreciate the peace
and quiet of living in the woods. The Growlers are changing the quality of life in San Juan
County. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of
peace.... We support a pattern of economic growth ... which recognizes the rural,
kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. We have talked to visitors who have
experienced the jet noise and have stated that they can't believe we live with this noise
invasion. Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone increasing the number of
jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property values. The EIS should address
economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit,Jefferson and Island Counties.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2866

As long time residents of Lopez Island, WA, we have been following the EIS process for
the past year. It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments
were deficient and incomplete. The Growlers were moved to NASWI without a full EIS
and without sufficient study of noise impacts, health consequences, plans for mitigation of
noise from the Growlers, and economic impacts to the region. The low frequency noise
which is the signature noise of the Growler was not even considered. San Juan County
was considered a no significant impact area. Clearly this is not the case. This EIS
Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2867
Port Townsend, WA 98368-5009

Greetings: We have lived in Jefferson County for forty years, enjoying boating to the San
Juans, hiking in the Olympics, enjoying the tranquility, natural beauty of the western
shore of the Olympic Peninsula. During our years of residence we have repeatedly
protested the naval growth of mission. We objected to the construction and use of the
Trident Nuclear Submarine base, for we perceive the nuclear weapons of the Trident
subs to be a threat to human survival. We vigorously protested the Navy munition depots
shipments of so-called depleted uranium. We have submitted statements to the Navy
regarding the growth of the Northwest Testing Range, the use of sonar, the taking of
whales, dolphins & seals. We have listened to the just complaints of Whidbey Island
residents who feel they were lied to by the Navy regarding the sound signature of the
EA-18Gs. We have been startled many times now by the Growler activities over
Southern Whidbey and have a reasonable concern that adding more Growlers will
degrade the quality of our communitys life. We have responded many times to the
required environmental impact statement processes the Navy complies with. In our
humble opinion breaking the growth of mission into separate environmental statements is
abusive to the public. One EIS focuses on ships, how many takes of marine mammals,
threatening many real submariners (whales, dolphins, seals) with crippling deafness,
invades the Olympic National Marine Sanctuary, and substantially disregards whale
migration and breeding grounds. Another Environmental assessment tiptoes past the
public the taking of the western Olympic Peninsula for electromagnetic training. Other
environmental assessments declare that increasing military jet traffic is insignificant. The
US forest service decision to allow or deny Navy use of forest land drew 3000 comments.
We were told that many of our concerns were not within the preview of the decision
matrix. We object that the ground based activities, covered in the Pacific Northwest
Electronic Warfare Range EA, were segmented from this draft EIS. The impacts of those
activities, and the impacts on the areas that the 36 new EA-18Gs will be flying over, as
well as the existing 82 Growler jets, should be covered in this EIS. Nothing has been
provided to the public on impacts from fuel dumping over water, our communities, or the
Olympic National Forest or Olympic National Park. No information exists on the effects of
these toxic compounds that must eventually come down to the surface. Has independent
research been conducted, on effects of jet fuel emissions or fuel dumping over the
National Forest and National Park, or over communities near where fuel is dumped? We
have read that the Growler aircraft are the loudest aircraft flying, and could be made to be
quieter, as commercial jets have been. The noise some growth of the Growler squadron
will damage the economy of the San Juans, Jefferson County, Whidbey Island, Clallam
County. Roaring fleets of planes practicing for many hours a day- late into the night
destroys the tranquility and quality of life of the people who live here, who come to visit.
Thank God we dont live any closer to Coupeville than we do. The Navy has created a
nightmare for citizens living near the pretend aircraft carrier Coupeville OLF. With the
purchase of additional growlers and the phasing out of using Mountain Home for training
the likelihood of frequent jet noise flying over Port Townsend is high. If the experience of
the Lopez residents and the Whidbey residents subject to low altitude overflights occurs
over Port Townsend and Port Angeles our peace of mind, our childrens health, the
health of the ecology in which we are a part will all suffer. Research shows that children
can be very distressed over military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include:
terror, panic, screaming, freezing in place, palpitations, shaking, dizziness, bed wetting,
sleep disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. Mitigation of
impact, such as that being requested by San Juan County residents may become
required in Jefferson and Clallam Counties as well. Jet aircraft can deafen people, create
health disorders and interfere with convalescence from illness. Disrupting sleep is very
annoying. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the
hours should be developed and studied. The methodology of determining sound impact
on humans through averaging, using measuring techniques that dont include actual
measurements of airplanes in flight including the planes afterburners hides the planes
real impacts on humans. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. Low frequency sounds impact
humans and the EIS should include C weighted sound measurements and analysis.
Growler training flights is intermittent. We have days without activity. The startle factor is
a component of the adverse health impacts that would be better represented by a short
and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan,
Jefferson and Clallam counties. There are no alternatives that base the Growlers at a
Environmental Quality regulations requires that Agencies shall Rigorously explore and
objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives. We believe that alternatives should not
be dismissed just because they are higher in cost or not as efficient. The EIS should fully
Whidbey Island. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly determined
that there was no adverse noise impact. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments
(EAs) are deficient in the following areas as noted in numerous comments. Analysis
Human health consequences Alternatives Mitigation Economic consequences This
EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of,
the analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments. Therefore it was inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. At a
timelines for completion. Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on
areas including the south end of Lopez Island, Port Townsend, Port Angeles, and Forks
to the greatest extent possible. Growler training flights over populated areas including
Jefferson, Clallam and San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation.
Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. A
all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction
measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. Notify citizens in
Practice (FCLP), Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). Continuation of the current
2867
level of jet noise, let alone increasing the number of jets, will discourage visitors and
reduce property values. Not including Alternatives that base additional jets at other
locations due to higher costs to the Navy does not consider the broader economic
Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. We dont want the planes to be
purchased. Their fuel consumption threatens the ecology, their use in training reduces
our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Their use militarily threatens to
cause a nuclear war. If only we had peacemakers in Congress, who arent willing to
worship war as an economic necessity. We sincerely ask you to include our concerns in
the process, and hope that if enough of us say No thanks our elected officials will begin
moving away from the false god of militarism. In the name of our children and the
wonderful inspiring majesty of the Olympic Peninsula we say no to more growlers.
2867
(b)(6)
2868
Lopez Island, WA, WA 98261

I am a teacher at Lopez Island School and am also involved in the preschool. The jets
previously didnt fly over the school and now they do. They also routinely fly over the
preschool in Lopez Village. I have observed students who are frightened by the noise
generated by the Growlers as they fly overhead, particularly during recess periods. I am
concerned about the effects on the children at our school and our preschool, both from a
fear factor and how it might impact their hearing. Research shows that children can be
disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. We also have students
and teachers engaged in outdoor education and gardening. The noise of the jets flying
overhead makes it difficult for students to hear and follow teacher directions. This could
lead to a dangerous situation. In addition, I live on the South End of Lopez Island.
Growler traffic over my home and the engine testing processes are definitely affecting my
life. What used to be a quiet peaceful place to live now regularly is filled with the sounds
of a war zone. Ear protection does nothing. My windows vibrate. My body vibrates.
shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. At a minimum
the following mitigation measures must be fully considered. All selected mitigation
measures should be included in the Record of Decision (ROD) along with timelines for
completion. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on page 11 of
the scoping booklet) should be modified to minimize routes over populated areas
including the south end of Lopez Island to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler
Sincerely(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2869
Mt. Vernon, WA 98274

The Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact area. This is not
true. Many commercial fishers rely on these waters for their catch - the proposal must
include an analysis of the economic impact of allowing the Navy to command fishers to
abandon their gear, with only 1/2 hour to leave the area. The analysis should also
consider the impact on the sport fishing industry throughout the proposed area. The EIS
must include analysis of the impact on marine mammals and other wildlife, including the
endangered Orca whales. In preparing an (EIS) the Council on Environmental Quality
action or alternatives. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly
determined there was no adverse noise impact from the introduction of the Growlers. It
was wrong to not evaluate noise mitigation. The following mitigation measures should be
included in the Record of Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion. Growler
training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on page 11 of the scoping booklet)
should be modified to minimize routes over populated areas, including the south end of
Lopez Island, to the greatest extent possible. Growler training flights over populated
areas including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. Afterburners
should not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. A Ground Run-up
for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. Notify citizens in advance of
all Growler training operations at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice
(FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). The analysis in the 2005 and 2012
Navy must enhance the analysis to support proposed actions in the Environmental
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2870
Chelan, WA 98816
I recently moved to Chelan but have property in the San Juans and kayak in the Salish
Sea. The noise is so deafening that it is impossible to talk on the open water. There must
be a more remote training area.
(b)(6)
2871

I am a resident of Port Townsend and very concerned that we who live on the Olympic
Peninsula and nearby islands are not being allowed sufficient input into the huge
expansion of Navy activity in our area. Instead, we are being asked to comment on bits
and pieces at a time, which is very confusing. Some of the proposed changes require an
EIS, some dont; some are explained with glorious charts in the midst of Port Townsend;
others require us to drive to Port Angeles or Forks to hear whats going on. Why are the
Forest Service roads not included in the same EIS as the Growlers? They are part of the
same overall plan. And now we hear of other, water based activities that the Navy plans
to expand. Why is that not part of this EIS? This expansion is a big deal. Why are we not
allowed a more open, accessible, thorough public process? Why does the Navy need the
Olympic Peninsula? It already trains pilots in four locations within easy reach of Whidbey
Island - Fallon, Mountain Home, Boardman Range and Yakima. Have these alternatives
been fully evaluated? We are told that the Navy doesnt want to waste fuel and to
separate families. Why not move both planes and families to one of these other ranges?
Or move the pilots and the planes during the training. Not to be unfeeling, but military
families often experience separations. Isnt that more sensible and considerate of the
greater good than contaminating with noise a pristine quiet area which includes a World
Heritage Site and the most significant temperate rainforest in the United States? Has the
Navy done a study comparing extra fuel costs against costs to the health of the
environment and people of the area as well as the economic costs to the region from
decreased tourism and loss of permanent population? Who wants to visit or live with
deafening noise and possible hazards from electromagnetic radiation? (b)(6)
Port Townsend
(b)(6)
2872

I have been a fulltime resident of the southend of Lopez for over 15 years. I work from
home. The jet noise is not only loud but very disturbing to my auditory system. The noise
on the southend of Lopez Island is excessive and this area must be considered in any
Environmental Assessment. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental
Assessments (EAs) was inadequate to support the findings. The Navy must enhance the
analysis in order to support proposed actions in the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). A. In the 2012 EA, Figure 3-4, Projected 2013 DNL Noise Contours for Ault Field
and OLF Coupeville indicates that San Juan County (SJC) is outside the affected area.
This does not reflect citizen experience. We experience Growler activity that is loud and
disruptive. Possible factors may include flights at lower elevation than assumed and
ducting of jet noise between water and clouds. It is good engineering practice to verify
computer simulations with actual measurements. Conduct continuous sound
measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period. B. Sound
measurements and analysis in the EAs used the A Weighting. This approximates the
response of the human ear and according to the cited studies in the EAs is linked to
hearing loss and annoyance. Growler engine noise has a signature low frequency
component that is ignored by A Weighting. There is substantial evidence that low
frequency sounds have deleterious health impacts beyond annoyance as addressed in
other comments. Growler sound measurement with C Weighting, which includes most of
the low frequency spectrum, is expected to be 10 to 20 dB higher than A Weighting. We
believe that C Weighting would also indicate that the Growler events are louder than the
Prowler. A fundamental assumption in the EAs, that the Growler is quieter, is incorrect.
Include C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. Reference: Low
Frequency Noise Study; Hodgdon, Atchley, Bernhard; April 2007
and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan
County.Reference: Mestre, V., et. al,: Technical Support For Day/Night Average Sound
Level (Dnl) Replacement Metric Research, Final Report, 14 June 2011, Section 6.1, last
paragraph. D. I understand that noise measurements and projections in the EAs assume
that afterburners are not in use. I understand that afterburners are used at times including
(b)(6)
2873
Lopez ISland, WA 98261

My husband and I have lived on the southend of Lopez Island for over 15 years. Since
military jet traffic has dramatically increased over the last year we have become
concerned over the health effects on our family. Issues concerning us include mental
state, radiation exposure and exposure to toxins released in the air from these jets. San
Juan County has a low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside). County residents are
routinely exposed 90 114 dBA (outside) blasts of noise from Growler over flights and
operations at Ault Field resulting in startle reactions. This noise is perceived
(b)(6)
2874

The southern part of San Juan County has offered me and my family the quiet life we
prefer until recently with the increase in jet noise from Whidbey Island. Much of our work
is outside as we are landscapers and arborist. We frequently have outdoor meetings with
our crew and clients, these are now often interrupted by growler noise. Residents of San
Juan County experience Growler jet noise at all times of the day and night. The noise
ranges from 65 110 dBA and 75 124 dBC (inside) and is the result of over flights,
engine testing and training operations. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish
a schedule of training operations for Ault Field. As a consequence, residents never know
if a blast of noise is going to be a single 30 second event or the beginning of 3 hours of
(b)(6)
2875
Lope Island, WA 98261

We are longtime residents of Lopez Island , operating our own business and raising a
family. We work hard physically and need our sleep. San Juan County residents regularly
protection does not help. Using the Day-Night Average (Ldn) noise Quiet Skies Over San
Juan County 4 06 December 2014 measure does not take into account that our bodies
do not average sleep loss. Noise annoyance during the night increases noise annoyance
for the following 24 hours. Noise disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead to health
the Growler emits, is significantly disturbing even at low sound pressure levels.
(b)(6)
2876

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposal to expand your VAQ
operations at NAS Whidbey Island. As a resident of Port Townsend, my first concern over
the plan is the increased noise generated by the additional Growlers and training flights.
We have experienced a significant increase in noise since the Growlers began using OLF
Coupeville in 2009, and the noise has become noticeably louder and more frequent in the
last year. A further increase in noise is highly undesirable for our community, and after
attending the scoping meeting in Port Townsend and reading your literature, I am
concerned that your approach to the noise issue will be too narrowly defined in your EIS
to reflect its actual impact on the communities affected. You define noise as "sound that
interferes with normal activities," and you give such examples as sleep disturbance and
indoor speech interference. These impacts are undeniably important, but they are
associated with a very high level of noise. The levels of jet noise experienced in Port
Townsend and other communities are usually not that extreme, but their effect is
nonetheless significant and should be included in an EIS. Many people live in this area
not because it's an easy place to make a living but because of the quality of life it offers,
and the relatively quiet natural environment that surrounds us is an essential part of that.
As that quality of life is eroded by an increase in aircraft noise, it affects not only our daily
lives but also our local economy and our property values. I am also concerned with the
impact of aircraft noise over a wider area than your EIS will apparently encompass, an
area that includes the Olympic MOA and Olympic National Park. Noise from the Growlers
affects every area they fly over, and those areas should be included in the EIS. Olympic
National Park, in particular, is an especially sensitive environment, and the noise of a
Growler flying at 6,000 or 8,000 feet above sea level is much greater for people and
animals in an alpine meadow at 5500 feet. A Growler flying 1,000 feet over an alpine
meadow can generate 150 decibels. Apart from being a pristine and federally protected
landscape, Olympic National Park is also a major economic engine for the whole region,
with park visitors spending $245,894,100 in communities near the park in 2013 alone.
Increased noise from a larger Growler fleet will have a detrimental impact on the park
itself and its appeal to visitors. The Navy seems not to be considering other options to
expanding the VAQ mission on Whidbey, such as using bases at Fallon, Mountain Home,
the Oregon Boardman Range, and Yakima. Fuel savings have been given as a reason
for not using other bases, but unless we have an EIS that considers the whole range of
impacts on human and animal communities in the area affected, we cannot know
whether those impacts are justified by something like a fuel savings that, figured as a
percentage of your overall fuel consumption, does not appear significant. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2877

As a longterm resident of the southend of Lopez Island our home is being dramatically
impacted in a negative way by the Whidbey Island jets. The serenity of this area has
been destroyed by this noise. The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States: The
alternatives include variations of the following factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to be
purchased 2. Number of aircraft assigned per squadron 3. Number of land-based
all reasonable alternatives ... . We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just
(b)(6)
2878

When I attended the Navys open house to address an expansion of the EA-18G
Growlers in numbers and time in the air, I noticed many private contractors there as well
to answer questions, show, and tell. I ask: how many private interests and profit-driven
companies have a stake in the go-ahead of the Navys plans, what companies will profit,
and what is the total amount at stake? As a good American I am naturally skeptical,
particularly of profit driven motives that compromises peace and quiet, the safety of the
environment, and of monies best spent on education and the social welfare.
(b)(6)
2879

We want the Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce the noise impacts of
Growler training flights on citizens including San Juan County. In preparing an
alternatives. We believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly
determined that there was no adverse noise impact. Therefore it was inappropriate not to
training operations at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP),
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
(b)(6)
2880

Our home on Lopez Island has been a quiet contemplative place but the jets have
removed this from our lives. The southend of Lopez Island where we live had been a
place of peace until these jets began dominating our skies. The San Juan County
and retirees. Some visitors who have experienced the jet noise have stated that they will
never return. Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone increasing the
number of jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property values. Not including
Counties.
(b)(6)
2881

We own and operate a tree service on Lopez Island and are dependent on the residents
here for our livelihood. As this jet noise increases people will not be able to live here or
stay for extended periods of time. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states,
(b)(6)
2882
Davenport, CA 95017
As a former backcountry (wilderness) ranger in Olympic National Park, I have firsthand
experience with the way that the Navy's planes interfered with any sense of wilderness,
peace, or solitude when they flew overhead. Their roar several times a summer over
Grand Valley, where I worked, reverberated in my chest and ears, and they seemed to fly
at ridge-top level or below. To have this kind of noise multiple times on a daily basis will
destroy any possibility of a wilderness experience in the areas the planes are flying. From
an environmental point of view, such noise must surely interfere with the nesting of the
marbled murelets, which could not even tolerate helicopter flights during their nesting
times, from what I recall. Surely the disruptions, both predictable and unpredictable, to
the well-being of the wildlife (even the emotional well-being, so to speak, of the wildlife)
must be profound.
(b)(6)
2883
Hillsborough, CA 94010
This letter is being submitted in response to request for community input for the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be prepared by the Navy for the EA-18G
Growler airfield operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island Ault Field and
Outlanding Field Coupeville. I understand that the purpose of soliciting community input
is to consider what factors to study and analyze during the EIS process. The Navy, in its
2012 Environmental Assessment report for NASWI (1), presented theoretical NOISEMAP
model predictions that flight operations with the new EA-18G Growlers would be no
louder than those with the Prowlers being replaced. These theoretical conclusions have
been challenged by many community residents whose subjective, real-world impressions
are that EA-18G Growlers are in fact louder than the older Prowlers. My own experience,
based on time spent on Orcas Island at property we own there, is that the Growler jets
create intrusive, disturbing noise, even when flying out of sight 10-20 miles away. This
was not a feature of the older Prowler jets. The Navy has an opportunity in the EIS
process to collected additional data that will help it persuade the community that the
Noisemap models predictions are accurate, and the communitys experiences of the new
planes are different than the model predicts for specific reasons that can be supported
with actual evidence. The Navy should, as part of the EIS, institute a program of
community noise monitoring to obtain extensive real-world data to validate the theoretical
NOISEMAP predictions. It is, however, also possible that the predictions of the
NOISEMAP model were inaccurate for a number of reasons, all of which the Navy should
address explicitly in their EIS: 1) The default NOISEMAP noise prediction model is
simplistic; more capable models are available but were not used; 2) The noise prediction
model is capable of making use of more realistic weather condition data, but was not
given the necessary data; 3) The noise model uses abstract flight path data that does not
correctly describe the real flight path data; 4) The noise model uses incomplete or
inaccurate aircraft noise source data; 5) The threshold for significant noise impact (65 dB
DNL) is not the appropriate measure to assess community noise perception. 1) The Navy
is using a simplified noise model; better models are available and should be used. The
October, 2012 NASWI EA (1), appendix C, Wyle report WR10-22 (2) describes the use of
NOISEMAP software, though the software version is not specified in the report. The
report says the model is capable of considering "atmospheric sound propagation effects
over varying terrain, including hills and mountainous regions, as well as regions of
varying acoustical impedancefor example, water around coastal regions.... average
daily temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit (degrees F), percent relative humidity (percent
RH) and station pressure in inches of mercury (in Hg) for each month of a year. "(3) Not
accounted for in the model are important effects of wind, vertical temperature gradients,
aircraft noise directionality, or nonlinear noise propagation. The most recent BaseOps
user manual, version 7.358 (4) makes clear that the software includes as an option a
more capable noise model, the "Advanced Acoustic Model" ("AAM"). Details of that
model are available in a WP-1304 overview (5) and technical report WP-1304-TR (6).
The AAM model incorporates refined sound-source modeling (e.g., directionality), and
atmospheric refraction calculations ("ray tracing" of sound waves as they are bent by
interaction with obstacle, or refracted by wind and temperature gradients.) The Navy
should use this more refined model to describe the impact of the Growler activity. In
addition to the AAM model, a third-generation "parabolic equation" model is capable of

even more sophisticated predictions of atmospheric wind and temperature gradient
effects on longer wavelength (low-frequency) sound. Features of that model are
described in the "PARTNER Low frequency Noise Study" (8), section 6.3. The model
rigorously supports the observation that perceived noise levels remote from the noise
source can vary by more than 10 dB depending on weather conditions. The Navy should
incorporate this model in their analyses, where appropriate. 2) The 2012 NASWI EA
appendix C Noise study (2) did not use available weather data specific to Oak Harbor,
WA. The 2012 NASWI EA report says local average monthly weather data was "not
available" (9), so unrealistic standard conditions were used instead. In fact, the
necessary temperature, pressure, and dew point data (from which can be calculated the
relative humidity) specific to Oak Harbor, WA are publicly available from at least 2
sources http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/nuw.wa.html, or
http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=579727&cityname=Oak-HarborWashington-United-States-of-America. These local data support the conclusion that the
2012 EA calculations overestimated the atmospheric sound absorption coefficient
alpha, and therefore underestimated the range of noise propagation at all frequencies,
by 10-15%. The EIS should use the available local weather to more accurately predict
sound propagation. 3) The noise model uses abstract flight path data that does not
correctly describe the real flight path data. The flight path profiles used to calculate the
noise contours should be verified against actual flight data (either from aircraft GPS or
radar). The Navy should cooperate to provide this data. In Europe, commercial airline
flights near major airports are monitored for conformance to proposed flight paths. Not
surprisingly, the two often differ. The NOISEMAP AAM software can accommodate
calculations based on multiple flight paths. The Navy EIS should document that the
model calculations represent the variations found in actual flight paths. 4) The noise
model uses incomplete or inaccurate aircraft noise source data The Navy should
document exactly the data used to generate the NOISEMAP output. Remarkably, the
Navy's official 2012 EA NASWI on potential aircraft noise impact does not accurately
describe the aircraft subject of the study. The 2012 NASWI EA report (Figure 1-2, Section
1 page 4) indicates that the EA-18G aircraft has a wingspan of 36.5 ft, is 56 ft long, has 2
engines, each F404-GE-400, producing "16,000 pounds/engine" thrust. This is a
description of the F/A-18A aircraft (at afterburner thrust) rather than the actual aircraft to
be deployed. The EA-18G Growler has a wingspan of 44.9 ft, is 60 ft long, has 2
F414-GE-400 engines, each producing 22,000 ft-lbs thrust (37.5% more than the
F/A-18A; more than twice the thrust of the older Prowler (10, 11). The EIS should
correctly identify the aircraft by name and by design specifications (including engines and
thrust, including and excluding afterburner). The noise from the Growler EA-18G is in a
class with the newer F-22 and F-35 in having unique sonic signatures: "The acoustic
environments in the vicinity of newer aircraft such as the F-35, F-22, and the F/A-18E/F
[italics added; the EA-18G is a modified version of the F/A-18E/F] differ from those of
most prior aircraft, with high noise levels associated with higher thrust engines. At those
high levels, acoustic propagation cannot be modeled using the same simple linear
theories employed in the classic noise models" (5). Section 4.3 of the 2012 NASWI EA
says, "For the noise generated by specific aircraft, the DOD draws on a vast aircraft
noise library. This library contains acoustic information on aircraft in the military inventory
measured under controlled conditions. Aircraft noise characteristics from the noise library
are used in NOISEMAP, adjusting the characteristics to local environmental conditions, to
2883
accurately predict the noise environment ." The report does not say exactly which data
were used to calculate the NOISEMAP output . The EIS should document clearly the
source data for any noise modeling. That noise data should include unweighted data with
frequencies as low as 8 Hz. Current Noisefile data includes no frequencies below 50 Hz.
The Noisefile data for use in the AAM noise model is different than that used in the
simpler older model. The necessary data should be obtained from measurements made
in flight testing both with and without aferburners in use(6). In other contexts,
representatives of the military have noted that the F-35 and F-22 aircraft are not louder
than existing aircraft, specifically comparing them to the F/A-18E/F, the fighter version of
the EA-18G (12). The "non-linear" acoustic propagation from these jets (5) does not
notably increase the DNL or SEL levels, but it is acknowledged to be the cause of
increased subjective annoyance. The Navy should address this subjective annoyance
feature quantitatively, because it could be one source of community objection to the new
planes. The AAM noise model in recent BaseOps software can account for some
features of this nonlinear acoustic behavior (6) and should be used in the EIS rather than
the simpler NOISEMAP model. 5) The 65 dBA DNL threshold for assessing nose impact
may be inappropriate for assessing high intensity jet noise. In the Public Comment
section of the 2012 EA (section 1.7.4, page 1-12 ff.), the Navy says, "The day-night
average sound level (DNL) is the metric used by all federal agencies for predicting
human annoyance and other potential noise effects on humans.... The 24-hour DNL is a
reliable measure of community sensitivity to aircraft noise and is the FAA and DOD
standard noise metric used in the United States (except California, which uses a similar
metric) to measure the effects of aircraft noise for both commercial airports and military
installations." Many studies have asked whether the 24 hr DNL is the appropriate metric
to assess community noise impact from jet traffic. The PARTNER Low Frequency Noise
Report (8) describes a Congressionally mandated study of jet noise assessment near
commercial airports. It includes an analysis of the noise parameters (in addition to DNL)
that most nearly correlate with subjective assessment of annoyance (see section 8 of that
report). The report concludes: a) "Because LAmax and LCmax [A-weighted and
C-weighted maximum noise levels] are simple metrics to implement, they should be used
to predict subjective response to indoor aircraft noise when the levels are appropriate for
A and C-weightings and there are not high levels of low-frequency noise." (p. 99); b) The
Tokita & Nakamura thresholds should be used as indicators of the potential for
annoyance due to low-frequency aircraft noise. LCE [C-weighted SEL] should be used as
a single number metric for assessing the potential for annoyance when high levels of
low-frequency aircraft noise are present." (p. 100.) The Navy EIS should report on the
time over threshold (TA) and number of events over threshold (NA) for each of these
metrics (LAmax, LCmax, LCE) at locations around Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. The
EIS should report the distribution of these over threshold events on a 24-hour scale, so
that the community can clearly understand the temporal distribution of their occurrence.
There is no 24 hour DNL limit for operations at most commercial airports. There are land
use regulations around airports that are governed by DNL limits, but these do not restrict
the flight of specific aircraft. However, one federally enforced aircraft noise regulation is
the prohibition against "Stage 2" commercial aircraft (as typified by the Boeing 727 or the
McDonnell-Douglas DC-9). These planes had low-bypass ratio jet engines. The engines
of the Growler are of the same general low-bypass ratio design. The Stage 2 noise
regulations are described in the FAA FAR part 36 and the associated appendices. The
previously mentioned reference (12) shows the F/A-18G produces noise at 119 dBA
2883
(military power) and 101 dB (minimum power) when 1000 ft overhead. This appears likely
to exceed the Stage 2 flyover and approach limits for a plane the size of 33,000 lb
F/A-18G. The Navy EIS should present the noise characteristics of the Growlers in the
context of Stage 2 aircraft noise limits in order to give some context to the community
around NASWI, relative to communities around commercial airports. The Navy should
take the opportunity during the EIS to establish community noise monitoring stations, as
are typically located around commercial airports, to monitor Growler jet noise. In addition,
the Navy should commit to establishing an on-request community noise monitoring
service. This service, available from many community airports, allows a properly
calibrated recording noise meter to be placed at the residents location for a number of
days. The relevant noise parameters can be calculated from the data at the end of the
recording period. If these data collections efforts are properly done and publicized, the
community can obtain objective information against which to compare their subjective
impressions of aircraft noise. To the extent that this data is rigorously recorded and
analyzed, it will contribute substantially to a resolution of confrontations based on
competing, unquantified claims from the Navy and the community. 6) The EIS should
explore alternative basing scenarios for the E/A-18G squadrons. Similar types are based
at more remote locations, including the NAS at Lemoore, CA. Specifically, the EIS should
describe the calculated density altitude parameter for NASWI throughout the year, and
should compare that range of density altitudes with density altitudes found at sites of
operations, including the Persian Gulf (13). Available climate information shows that the
density altitudes at NASWI are substantially different from those to be expected in many
operational environments. This presents a risk to pilots, equipment and naval crews, and
an operational risk to their missions, because the aircraft performance during training at
NASWI will not be the same as during operations in the Persian Gulf. Climate conditions
in Lemoore, CA result in density altitude parameters that very closely correspond to those
found in the Persian Gulf at the same time of year. For this reason, all E/A-18G
carrier-based air crews should be trained in Lemoore, CA, or in environments that most
closely resemble the operational environments in which they will fly. These suggestions
are made with the hope that both the Navy and the surrounding community will be able to
accurately understand and discuss the likely impact of the proposed changes in flight
operations at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. (1) Environmental Assessment for the
Expeditionary Transition of EA-6B Prowler Squadrons to EA-18G Growler at Naval Air
Station Whidbey Island at Oak Harbor, Washington Final, (October, 2012). (2) Patrick
Chester and Joseph Czech, Aircraft Noise Study for Naval Air Station Whidbey Island
and Outlanding Field Coupeville, Washington, Wyle WR 10-22, Appendix C Noise
Report. (3) Ibid., p. 7-12. (4) Fred Wasmer and Fiona Maunsell, BaseOps 7.358 Users
Guide, Wasmer Consulting, 2013, p. 82, http://wasmerconsulting.com/baseops.htm
(accessed Dec. 31, 2013). (5) Kenneth Plotkin, Advanced Acoustic Models for Military
Aircraft Noise Propagation and Impact Assessment (WP-1304),
http://www.serdp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Noise-and-Emissi
ons/Noise/WP-1304 (accessed Jan., 2014). (6) Juliet Page et al., Advanced Acoustic
Model Technical Reference and User Manual, SERDP Project WP-1304,
http://www.serdp.org/content/download/9133/109364/file/WP-1304-TR.pdf (accessed
Jan., 2014). (7)
http://www.fican.org/pdf/Roadmap2011/2011_0900_Plotkin_Advanced_Acoustic_Model3-Dimension_Noise_Sources.pdf (8) Kathleen Hodgdon et al., Low Frequency Noise
Study Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction An
2883
FAA/NASA/Transport Canada sponsored Center of Excellence, 2007, p. 39 ff.. (9)

Chester and Czech, Wyle WR 10-22, Appendix C Noise Report, p. 12. (10)
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/military/ea18g/index.page? accessed Jan.,
2014. (11)
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=C8B54023-C006-46
99-BD20-9A45FBA02B9A accessed Jan., 2014. (12) Joint Communications Release JSF
Program Office & Lockheed Martin F-35 Acoustics Based on Edwards AFB Acoustics
Test (April, 2009) http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-091124-030.pdf ,
accessed Jan., 2014. (13) Fleet Marine Force Reference Publication 0-54, The Persian
Gulf Region. A Climatological Study. 1990.
2883
(b)(6)
2884
Lopez island , WA 98261

in the last 15 years. All the reasons we have chosen to live here are being degraded by
the constant noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. When we moved here,
I barely noticed the jet noise, now the noise in unbearable and makes me wonder why
anyone would want to live here. The Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no
significant impact area. This is clearly false. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2885
lopez, WA 98261
I have lived on the south end of lopez island for 41 years. The noise levels coming from
NAS Whidbey has increased in the last few years culminating with the EA-18G Growler
training. I am a ISA Certified Arborist and I am the owner of a small business. At times
the noise from the Growlers interferes with my work in potentially life threatening ways.
As in I can't communicate with my ground crew while climbing a tree and removing
branches/large chunks of wood. Even a small piece of wood falling can do great
damage.Also at times I can't hear my wood chipper while chipping and it has a db rating
of 89 db at 50 feet. I have also witnessed detrimental health effects from exposure to
prolonged noise from the Growlers and so I ask why should the people being protected
by the military be subject to the use of one of its weapons? I understand the need for
training but I don't understand the need to adversely affect others when training.
Personally I would think that being as silent as possible is more un-nerving. I would also
think that having the ability to go from silent to really loud would be a more effective
weapon. Below are the points that I would like the navy to look at in their Environmental
Impact Statement. Navy Environmental Impact Statement for the EA-18G Growler Airfield
Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island Scoping Comments Fall 2014 1.
Analysis Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. 2. Health Effects Related to
Startle Reaction from Growler Training San Juan County has a low background noise of
35 45 dBA (outside). County residents are routinely exposed 90 114 dBA (outside)
blasts of noise from Growler over flights and operations at Ault Field resulting in startle
to repeated noise at this level. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and
Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. 3. Health Effects
Related to Loss of Control Residents of San Juan County experience Growler jet noise at
all times of the day and night. The noise ranges from 65 110 dBA and 75 124 dBC
(inside) and is the result of over flights, engine testing and training operations. Naval Air
Station Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of training operations for Ault Field.
As a consequence, residents never know if a blast of noise is going to be a single 30
second event or the beginning of 3 hours of noise from training. This severely impacts
quality of life, use of property and has health consequences. Surveys show that loss of
control over ones life is one of the most disturbing effects of low level military over flights
and/or sonic booms on rural Americans. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M:
(FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). 4. Health Effects of Jet Noise on
Children On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely fly over our school in the middle of the
island and over Lopez Village where our Preschool and Childrens Center is located.
2885

den Auswirkungen des Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 3- 8, 1989. The EIS
5. Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance San Juan County residents regularly
protection does not help. Using the Day-Night Average (Ldn) noisemeasure does not
take into account that our bodies do not average sleep loss. Noise annoyance during the
night increases noise annoyance for the following 24 hours. Noise disruptions and sleep
disturbance can lead to health disorders and interfere with convalescence from illness.
Low frequency sound, such as the Growler emits, is significantly disturbing even at low
sound pressure levels. References: LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking Performance
6. Alternatives The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States: The alternatives
include variations of the following factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to be purchased 2.
Number of aircraft assigned per squadron 3. Number of land-based squadrons. 4. The
distribution of aircraft operations at NAS Whidbey Island between Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville There are no alternatives that base the Growlers at a location other than NAS
Whidbey Island. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations
requires that Agencies shall (a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives ... . We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just
more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. 7.
Mitigation We want the Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce the noise
2885
impacts of Growler training flights on citizens including San Juan County. In preparing an
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). 8. Economic Impacts The San Juan County
and retirees. Some visitors who have experienced the jet noise have stated that they will
Counties. 9. Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments The 2005
and 2012 Environmental Assessments (EAs) are deficient in the following areas as noted
in numerous comments. Analysis Human health consequences Alternatives Mitigation
2012 Environmental Assessments.
2885
(b)(6)
2886
We have lived in solitude and serenity of the Southend of Lopez Island for over 40years,
but now the noise of the Growler puts in question The San Juan Comprehensive plan
which states that "the islands are places of peace .... We support a pattern of economic
growth ... which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine and isolated
nature of the islands." The isles attract organic agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists,
hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. Unless there is a drastic
change, these people will not come back. The EIS should address economic impacts
throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit , Jefferson and Island Counties! Sincerely.
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2887

I live in the Hughes Bay area of South Lopez and as a school board member and
program coordinator for the Family Resource Center often work from home. We
experience Growler noise usually 5 days a week often starting at 8am and continuing
until 9 -10 pm in the winter and 12 pm 1 am in the summer. One of the most difficult
aspects for me is the Startle effect. We get sporadic blasts of noise throughout the day
ranging from 75 113 decibels. I can feel my adrenalin kick in and my blood pressure
rises. This constant noise is definitely affecting my health and ability to serve our
community. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of
Noise (pub 1115), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, pp. 535545, 1984. Hall, FL., Birnie, SE, Taylor, SM, Palmer, JE: Direct Comparison of
(b)(6)
2888
We have lived in solitude and serenity of the Southend of Lopez Island for over 40years,
but now the noise of the Growler puts in question The San Juan Comprehensive plan
which states that "the islands are places of peace .... We support a pattern of economic
growth ... which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine and isolated
nature of the islands." The isles attract organic agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists,
hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. Unless there is a drastic
change, these people will not come back. The EIS should address economic impacts
throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit , Jefferson and Island Counties! Sincerely.
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2889

I live on the south end of Lopez Island. Over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations
to live on the island. In fact, we are seriously considering whether or not we can continue
to live here given the impacts of the current jet noise and the proposals for expansion
When the jets are flying the noise is often so intense that conversation stops. Naval Air
and/or sonic booms on rural Americans. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M:
(b)(6)
2890

The jets didnt used to fly over the school and now they do. They also routinely fly over
the preschool in Lopez Village. Growler traffic over my home is definitely affecting my life.
What used to be a quiet peaceful place to live is now regularly filled with the sounds of a
war zone. Ear protection does nothing. My windows vibrate. My body vibrates. I am
concerned about the effects on the children at our school and our preschool. Arlene
Bronzaft, a physchologist, discovered that exposing children to chronic noise "amplifies
aggression and tends to dampen healthful behavior." In a study of pupils in grades 2-6, at
PS 98, a grade school in Manhattan, she showed that children assigned classrooms in
the half of the building facing the elevated train tracks were eleven months behind in
reading by their sixth year, compared to this on the quieter side of the building. After the
NY City Transit Authority installed noise abatement equipment on the tracks, a follow up
study showed no difference in the two groups. from page 187 of " A Natural History of the
Senses ' By Diane Ackerman Research shows that children can be very distressed over
Bonn, June 12, pp 3- 8, 1989. The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler
Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2891

I have had children enrolled in Lopez School for 14 years and am currently Board Vice
Chair for the the Lopez School District. The jets didnt used to fly over the school and now
they do. They also routinely fly over the preschool in Lopez Village where I work for a not
for profit agency, (the Lopez Island Family Resource Center),whose mission is to
strengthen the lives of families on Lopez Island. Growler traffic over my home and
workplace is definitely affecting my life. What used to be a quiet peaceful place to live
now regularly is filled with the sounds of a war zone. Ear protection does nothing. My
windows vibrate. My body vibrates. I am concerned about the effects on the children at
our school and our preschool. Research shows that children can be very distressed over
Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2892

I have enjoyed living on Lopez Island for 15 years. One of the wonders of living here has
been the quiet nights and being able to hear the waves, the sea lions, the wind and all
the night sounds. The Growlers have destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise
between 8pm and 12 midnight. In the summer the noise can continue until 1am.
Research shows that the indoor threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Our noise
journals show that indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field range from 57 80 dBA.
If the low frequency noise is measured the sound levels range from 77 100 dBC.
Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Its unthinkable that the
Navy considers San Juan County and Lopez Island a no significant impact noise area!
Averaging noise over a year is useless when youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not
average sound. I feel that living with the sleep disruptions from the Growlers is affecting
my health. References: LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking Performance Decrements
Following Minimal Sleep Description: The Effects of Habituation during Sleep,
Physiological Psychology, 3:147-174, 1975. Kryter, Ran D., Analysis of Laboratory and
Field Data on Awakening from Noise, 1988. Lukas, J., Measures of Noise Level: Their
Relative Accuracy In Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise During
Sleep. EPA-600/1-77-0 10, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Feb. 1977. Griefahn, Barbara.
Research on Nose-Disturbed Sleep since 1973. In Proceedings of the Third International
Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. ASHA Report No. 10, April 1980.
Gniefahn, B Muzet, A: Noise Induced Sleep Disturbances and Their Effects on Health.
Institut Feur Arbeits und Sozialmedizin, Universitaet Mainz, West Germany and Centre
dEtudes Bioclimatiques due CNRS, France. The EIS should address sleep disturbance.
A survey of the residents in the study area including San Juan County should document
the extent of this problem. An Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault
field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2893
We have been following the EIS process for the past year. It appears that both the 2005
and the 2012 Environment Assessments were deficient and incomplete. The Growlers
were moved to NASWI without a full EIS and without sufficient study of noise impacts,
health consequences, plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and economic
impacts to the region. Thelow frequency noise which is the signature noise of the Growler
was no even considered. San Juan County was considered a "no significant impact area.
Clearly this is not the case! The EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and
should not rely on, or tier off of, the Record of Decision for the 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2894

I live just across the water from NAS Widbey. The Navy is at war with the citizenry. This
base has out grown it presence here and wants to continue to add to the number of jets.
This is not so much about our"defense" is it is about the giant military industrial complex
that we are forced to pay for. America spends more than the next 25 counties combined.
How awful. And if this base is so important would it not be an obvious and easy target,
right across the Pacific from China, and North Korea. Please be reasonable more the
base to a less populated place or limit the number of planes to be stationed here. I wish
you could spend just one day in the area close to the base when the base was in full
gear. The jets roar from morning till mid-night. Thank you for a little peace in peace time.
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2895

I have lived on Lopez Island for 15 years. The jets from NASWI have not bothered me
much until this last year. Now I experience them all over the Island. If I want to walk on
our new National Monument lands at Iceberg Point they are the predominant sound - not
birds or waves or sea lions. If Im in the Village I experience them often with their
deafening vibrations. Even at our ferry landing at the north end their noise is not
uncommon. Yoga classes which I have attended mid-island for 15 years are now
interrupted by the rumble of jets. This has not happened before the last year. At night
when the island used to be quiet the hours of blasting and roaring can be heard until late
at night. I work with small business owners on the island as part of my work with the
Lopez island family Resource Center to help them be sustainable and many of the small
businesses are concerned about the economic impact of the jet noise on the islands.
They rely on tourism to remain sustainable and as the jet noise increases, are fearful that
tourism will decrease and their businesses as well as the economic stability of the island
will fail. I do not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that would base
Whidbey Island. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2896

As a long time San Juan County resident I am now planning trips to the mainland to
experience quiet. This is ridiculous. The Navy should be implementing immediate noise
Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2897

I work with small business owners as part of my work with the Lopez Island Family
Resource Center. Many of the small businesses are concerned about the economic
impacts of the jet noise. With our small population, running businesses is no easy task.
They rely on tourism to remain sustainable and as the jet noise increases, are fearful that
tourism will decrease and their businesses and the economic stability of the island will
fail. We moved to the island because of the community, beauty and the quiet. The
Growlers are changing the quality of life in San Juan County. We would never have
bought property here if we had experienced the intrusive noise from NASWI. The San
Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Sincerely,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2898

I have been following the EIS process for the past year. It appears that both the 2005 and
(b)(6)
2899
Lopez Island , WA 98261

My wife and I attended the recent Scoping meeting on Lopez Island, WA, 12/3/14. We
live on Lopez and have been coping with the jet noise at the base and over our house for
years. It has only gotten worse. The advent of more squadrons and additional aircraft
coming to Ault Field and OLF Coupeville will greatly add to our discomfort, not to mention
the pollution from exhaust and dumped fuel. These bases sit in one of the most beautiful
settings in the US. There must be dozens of locations with less population and noise
concerns around the US to move to. We are business owners on Lopez and our
livelihood is threatened by this noise pollution which discourages our tourist based
economy. Due to these factors, our real estate values have also been affected. No one
wants to move into an area with this type of pollution. It is our ardent wish that you will
reconsider base expansion and consider relocation.
(b)(6)
2900
lopez, WA 98261
Historically, Lopez Island has been a place for outdoor ceremonies. Before jets, people
have traveled far to the quiet of the islands for memorials and weddings. How are these
events to happen as they have if jet noise assaults the assembly?
(b)(6)
2901
lopez, WA 98261
Before the Growlers came my bird feeder was flocked by countless small birds. Since the
great rumbling caused by the navy's new jets the birds are few. What effects is this noise
having on the lives of song birds?
(b)(6)
2902
lopez, WA 98261
On the shore of Aleck Bay, Lopez Island one can feel vibrations caused by the low
frequency jet through the soles of ones boots and see at the same time "mass wasting"of
the shoreline bluff, happening in the form of crumbling and falling in dry times, and sliding
in wet. What effect is the vibration from jet noise having on steep slopes and slide prone
hill sides elsewhere?
(b)(6)
2903
lopez, WA 98261
Secretary of State John Kerry has proclaimed climate change as the greatest threat to
national security. How is the navy helping the nation by blowing vast quantities of hot
green house gases through offensive weapons systems which can not be used to rescue
or any other benevolent purpose?
(b)(6)
2904
lopez, WA 98261
A steady supply of clean flowing water is essential for our civilization. Mountain snowpack
is critical to our lives. Air pollution, and climate change inhibit snow accumulation, and If
jet noise increases avalanche hazard, the snow is prematurely brought below the snow
line, exposing it to melt during winter, where is our water when we need it? How does the
navy plan to replace our natural source of water for fish forests, fields and cities?
(b)(6)
2905

Dear friends in the military, I am deeply concerned about your plans in the EA-18G
Growler Airfield Operations at NAS Whidbey Island, and believe that your EIS process is
very incomplete. The cumulative impact of increasing Growler activity should be
addressed in one report. It should add the negative impact on the ground in the Olympic
Forest, to that of the increased noise over the entire region, to that of the tourist and
non-military economy, and to that of the increase in green house gas emissions. Surely, if
these "war game" exercises are necessary, alternative locations could be found.
Furthermore, are they really necessary? Will the increase in these jets and their activities
really make us safer in the world? Could the money be better used for education of our
children or dealing with global climate change? As a grandfather, a pediatrician, a public
health expert, and a former Mayor of Port Townsend, I urge you to do the right thing for
future generations and realize that this plan is NOT in our or their best interest.
Respectfully, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2906

To Whom It May Concern: Please conduct continuous sound measurements in the
southern portion of San Juan County over a one-month period including C weighted
sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. The EIS analysis should incorporate
that exceed 60 cB SEL and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted areas
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. Close attention should be paid
to recent, current, and ongoing studies that show the importance of the acoustic
environment to overall environmental health, and the significant impacts of a degraded
acoustic environment to biodiversity. I am a long time resident of San Juan Island. I live
here because of the beautiful environment and the closeness of nature. The quiet of the
(b)(6)
2906
(b)(6)
2907

To Whom It May Concern: Please conduct continuous sound measurements in the
southern portion of San Juan County over a one-month period including C weighted
sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. The EIS analysis should incorporate
that exceed 60 cB SEL and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted areas
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. Close attention should be paid
to recent, current, and ongoing studies that show the importance of the acoustic
environment to overall environmental health, and the significant impacts of a degraded
acoustic environment to biodiversity. I am a long time resident of San Juan Island. I live
here because of the beautiful environment and the closeness of nature. The quiet of the
(b)(6)
2907
(b)(6)
2908
Greenbank, WA 98253
Noise measurement must be accurate and according to accepted scientific and medical
standards. It must measure damage to hearing and physical and mental health generally,
and in all relevant locations, including Oak Harbor.
(b)(6)
2909
Kelowna, WA 98844
After hearing about the electronic warfare type of operations planned in Nothern
Washington state and there affects into BC, Canada I grew concerned as my wife and I
already have electrosensitvity that could be aggravated by these exercises.
(b)(6)
2910

We have enjoyed the tranquility and natural beauty of the Olympic Peninsula since
childhood, and we believe adding more Growlers will degrade the quality of our regions
life. The Navy has created a nightmare for citizens living near the Coupeville OLF. With
the purchase of additional growlers and the phasing out of using Mountain Home for
training frequent jet noise flying over Port Townsend will increase. If PT and PA
experience what Lopez and Whidbey residents subject to low altitude overflights have our
peace of mind, our childrens health, the health of the ecology of which we are a part will
suffer. Jet aircraft can deafen people, create health disorders and interfere with
convalescence from illness The EIS should address sleep disturbance. Mitigation of
required in Jefferson and Clallam Counties as well. A survey of the residents in the
impacted area should document the extent of this problem. The methodology of
determining sound impact on humans through averaging, using measuring techniques
that dont include actual measurements of airplanes in flight including the planes
afterburners hides the planes real impacts on humans. Sound measurement and
analysis in the EIS should include afterburners. We dont want the planes to be
purchased. Their fuel consumption threatens the ecology, their use in training takes our
tranquility. Their use militarily threatens to cause a nuclear war. If only we had
peacemakers in Congress who dont worship war as an economic necessity. In the name
of our children and the wonderful inspiring majesty of the Olympic Peninsula we say no to
more growlers.
(b)(6)
2911
Lopez Island, WA
I live on the south side of Lopez Hill on Lopez Island and experience considerable
Growler noise flying directly overhead. I work outdoors and find the noise physically
uncomfortable and mentally distracting. The EIS should study the following: A. Conduct
flights.
(b)(6)
2912
Lopez Island, WA
uncomfortable and mentally distracting. The EIS should address the health effects of
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2913
lopez, WA 98261
Terrorism, and the fear of terrorism might be a factor in our country having the biggest
baddest weapon systems meant to fight other armies in the battle field. Faced with such
a formidable foe, those being flown over and bombed by us have no way to fight back but
hit soft targets. The Washington State ferries could be one of those targets. These ferries
are loaded with cars full of gasoline and other explosives, propane tanks medical oxygen
etc. What plan does the navy have to rescue survivors of an attack on the ferries.
Whidbey General Hospital is too small Island Hospital has only 40 beds and nurses ride
the ferries to work. How is a gun boat with a 6 man capacity going to do any thing to give
direct aid. How are the A18 jets going to make us safe here where we are, While
overseas, our jets recruit terrorists with every flight? Are the jets making us less safe?
(b)(6)
2914
Lopez Island, WA
uncomfortable and mentally distracting. The EIS should address the issue of Loss of
(b)(6)
2915
Lopez Island, WA
uncomfortable and mentally distracting. The EIS should specifically address the issue of
Growler noise on children. Parents, teachers and children should be questioned about
avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2916
Lopez Island, WA
uncomfortable and mentally distracting. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A
extent of this problem. An Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault
field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2917
OVERALL SCOPE: The EIS scope should be expanded to include all EA-18G operations
from Naval Air Station Whidbey Island to determine how they impact the entire Puget
Sound region, its communities and our environment. GEOLOGIC IMPACT: I live in the
Ledgewood area, 3.5 miles south of the OLF as the Growler flies. We suffered a seismic
event, a landslide, on March 27th 2013. The increased number of flight operations during
the rainy months of early 2013 (more than 6000 between 1 January and 1 June) were a
contributing factor that caused our landslide. The EA-18Gs flew directly over the slide
area at low altitude (500 AGL) hundreds of times during the wettest months of year. The
roar of their engines not only assaults the cliffs directly from above but it reflects off the
water to pummel the cliffs from ground level as well. At the EIS open house none of the
pilots could tell me what kind of seismic shock is created every time a 50,000 lb. EA-18G
slams onto the concrete flight deck at the OLF 3.5 miles away, but the shockwaves
undoubtedly travel for miles in all directions. The combination of wet wintertime weather,
100+ decibel sound shockwaves pummeling the cliffs hundreds of times in close
succession, and the seismic shock of the aircraft slamming onto a concrete Carrier flight
deck thousands of times a few miles away were more than our cliffs could bear. An
examination of the impact of aircraft noise and ground vibrations on the various island
slide areas including in the Ledgewood Beach community should be included in the EIS.
(Additional information can be found on the Island County website referencing the March
27, 2013 Ledgewood Geologic Event,
http://www.islandcounty.net/publicworks/DEM/landslide.html). NOISE: Test real-time high
noise events on the ground. Dont use model averages that include non-operational
times. JGL Acoustics reports maximum sound levels from Growlers at the OLF were well
above the levels requiring hearing protection and are high enough to potentially result in
permanent hearing loss. HEALTH: Address all health effects of aircraft noise and toxic
jet aircraft pollution, including permanent hearing damage, blood pressure and cardiac
problems; how children have a greater susceptibility; and the harm to livestock and
wildlife. Reference studies by: The World Health Organization; The U.S. Department of
Transportation; and The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SAFETY: Consider how
pilots and residents are at risk whenever the Navy uses the short, outdated World War II
era Coupeville OLF and flies at low altitudes over residences and businesses.
ENVIRONMENT: Examine the environmental effects of OLF flight operations on the
valuable recreational, tourist, agricultural and wildlife uses in Ebeys Landing National
Historic Reserve, a National Park of environmental, cultural, and historical significance
and an important wildlife and migratory bird habitat. REAL ESTATE VALUES: Consider
how the louder and more frequent use of the OLF have impacted the local real estate
market. Home sales in the OLF area have shown a steep decline from 2008 to 2012,
compared to increases in Langley, Freeland and Island County in general. I personally
know people who excluded properties north of South Whidbey State Park due to the
Coupeville OLF from their new home search. ALTERNATIVES TO OLF: The Navy should
close the outdated Coupeville OLF (which wasnt used for 6 contiguous months in 2013)
and permanently relocate all EA-18G flight training to safe, state-of-the-art facilities in
non-populated areas. Consider the economic benefits to the navy of moving the flight
training to a region less affected by weather. Frequently OLF Coupeville is unusable due
to adverse weather conditions including fog and wind (many days of planned usage were
cancelled in 2014 due to weather). (b)(6)
Coupeville, Wa
98239
2917
(b)(6)
2918
Lopez Island, WA
I live on the south side of Lopez Hill and work outdoors. I find the Growler noise
physically uncomfortable and mentally distracting. The EIS should fully evaluate one or
Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2919

Our Olympic National Forest is NOT a war zone. You already have other locations for
your Growler practice and for your dangerous radiation-emitting radar jamming practice.
We, the people, have had enough.
(b)(6)
2920
Lopez Island, WA
physically uncomfortable and mentally distracting. At a minimum the following mitigation
in the Record of Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion. Growler training
Island, to the greatest extent possible. Growler training flights over populated areas
including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. Afterburners should
for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. Notify citizens in advance
(b)(6)
2921
Lopez Island, WA
physically uncomfortable and mentally distracting. The EIS should address economic
impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Sincerely
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2922

NO MORE GROWLERS! As a a Marine Geologist and Environmental Scientist, I work for
the state to restore key habitat and environmental quality for our state's endangered
species, both land and aquatic. The Navy's proposal to increase Growlers and their very
disruptive, stress-inducing noise is completely counterproductive to our states and federal
efforts to protect and restore endangered species, like the marbled murrelet, spotted owl,
and even salmon. You plans will also disrupt,even further, U.S. citizens who live here on
the Olympic Peninsula - who will also become an endangered species, too if the Navy
continues with their expansion plans! Jet aircraft can deafen people, create health
disorders and interfere with convalescence from illness The EIS should address these
stresses, especially sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the impacted area
should document the extent of this problem. We are already experiencing great distress
from the current practices by the Growlers and believe they should be reduced
dramatically. We vehemently oppose any expansion! In the name of war practices, you
are completely destroying the lives of citizens that currently live here. Why not just shoot
at us, as well? You are protecting no one but yourselves, and destroying our lives, and
the recovery of endangered species in the process. NO MORE GROWLERS!
(b)(6)
2923
Freeland, WA 98249
I am in full accord with the following comments. Guide to the Scoping Meeting (for the
subject EIS) is much too limited to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). That act requires all federal agencies to prepare an EIS whenever they
undertake any significant action, and further stipulates that all activities that are
functionally related must be included. The geographic area proposed to be covered by
the EIS is limited to the Whidbey Island area generally, and to landings, takeoffs, and
touch and go training at Ault and OLF fields. In this regard, a diagram on the left side of
the Growler Operations page of the Scoping Meeting Guide is most telling. That
diagram includes three flight paths that extend to the southwest of the area shown as
follows: Those flight paths, we are sure, lead to the Navys proposed Pacific Northwest
Electronic Warfare Range (EWR). The impacts of the planes on those flight paths do not
end at the boundaries of the Navys diagram. The impacts extend as far as the Growlers
fly. Under NEPA those impacts must be evaluated in the EIS both in the area between
Whidbey Island and the proposed EWR, and in the area of the proposed EWR. Because
that was not done in the Navys Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed EWR,
it should be done now. This is also necessary under the 1988 Master Agreement
between the Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture. That Master
Agreement requires the Forest Service to study both the impacts of the proposed
land-based training activities and the impacts of the proposed use of airspace if directly
associated with the land based training. We are mindful that the Navys EA for the EWR
states at Page 2-8: All of the EW training activities and locations that would be
associated with the implementation of the Pacific Northwest EW Range were analyzed in
the NWTRC EIS/OEIS. The NWTRC EIS/OEIS has an October 2010 Record of Decision
that approved an alternative that included EW training activities associated with the
establishment of a fixed emitter in the Pacific Beach area. Current training levels in the
Olympic MOAs and W237 will remain the same as per the NWTRC EIS/OEIS, and any
changes to the type or tempo of training conducted in the Olympic MOAs and W237 will
be addressed in the Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT) EIS/OEIS. However,
neither statement is accurate. That the NWTRC EIS does not evaluate the activities
contemplated by the proposed EWR is apparent from the following tables: Table 3.2-2
lists the emission sources for all training activities evaluated by the NWTRC EIS. The
only emission sources listed for Electronic Combat are from aircraft and ships or boats.
There are no emission sources listed for ground based mobile emitters. Had the activities
contemplated by the proposed EWR been evaluated by the NWTRC EIS, the ground
based mobile emitters should have been listed here as an emission source. Table 3.3-8
lists, by activity and training area, the stressors and hazardous materials that would be
associated with the activities evaluated by the NWTRC EIS. For Electronic Combat the
only areas listed are the Darrington Area and W-237. Had the activities contemplated by
the proposed EWR been evaluated by the NWTRC EIS, the Olympic MOAs should have
been listed here as a training area. Table 3.16-1 lists by Range and Training Site, the
training environment and the type of training activity covered by the NWTRC EIS. For
Electronic Combat the only area listed is W-327. Had the activities contemplated by the
proposed EWR been evaluated by the NWTRC EIS, the Olympic MOAs would should
have been listed here as a training area. Table 3.16-2 lists by warfare type the area in
which it would be conducted. For Electronic Combat the only areas listed are W-237a
and the Darrington Area. Had the activities contemplated by the proposed EWR been
evaluated by the NWTRC EIS, the Olympic MOAs would should have been listed here as
a training area. That the NWTT EIS did not evaluate the activities contemplated by the
proposed EWR is apparent from the following statements: At Page 2-3 it says The land
resources affected by the use of the Olympic MOAs A and B will be evaluated as they are
directly impacted by overflights for at-sea activities; At Page 3.6-18 it says The training
activities involving aircraft in the Olympic MOAs evaluated in this EIS/OEIS are similar to
the training evaluated in the NWTRC EIS. With Electronic Combat training in the
Olympic MOAs not having been evaluated in the NWTRC EIS, this sentence
demonstrates it was not evaluated in the NWTT either. PPF expects the Navy in the
proposed EIS to evaluate the impacts of the Growlers, both in the area between Whidbey
Island and the proposed EWR, and in the area of the proposed EWR, with the same
intensity and specificity it evaluates the impacts of the Growlers in the Whidbey Island
area. In this regard, a diagram on the right side of the Growler Operations page of the
Scoping Meeting Guide is helpful. It shows a detailed portrayal of the flight paths of
planes using the OLF for Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP). A copy is shown below.
It is commendable that the Navy has gone to such extents to study the impacts of the 36
new Growlers at OLF. However, the same detailed portrayal of flight paths of planes
going to and returning from, and using the proposed EWR, is essential for a proper
evaluation of the impacts in those locations. Because there are 15mobile emitter sites in
the proposed EWR, and one fixed emitter site, there are essentially 16 OLFs in the
proposed EWR. A detailed portrayal of flight paths for each of the 16 proposed emitter
sites is needed. The same is true of every possible flight path to and from the proposed
EWR. With neither the NWTRC EIS nor the NWTT EIS having evaluated Electronic
Combat in the Olympic MOAs, or aircraft flights in the area between Whidbey Island and
those MOAs, the impacts of the 82 or so Growlers currently at NASWI, as well as the
proposed 36 new Growlers, must now be evaluated in the proposed EIS. Prior to
preparing an EIS as suggested above, the Navy should consider that the Master
Agreement referred to above authorized military use of National Forest lands only if that
use is compatible with other uses and in conformity with applicable forest plans,
provided the Department of Defense determines and substantiates that lands under its
administration are unsuitable or unavailable. NASWI is already conducting electronic
warfare training at several Department of Defense bases in the Northwest that include
restricted airspace and nearly half a million acres of land. Only one, the Fallon Training
Range Complex, is mentioned, in a single paragraph on page 2-9 of the EA for the
proposed EWR. This does not qualify as the kind of determination and substantiation
required by the Master Agreement. Also, Capt. Michael Nortier, the commanding officer
at NASWI, stated in a Commentary in the Peninsula Daily News on December 26, 2014,
that The armed services have decades of experience successfully operating similar fixed
and mobile emitters at a variety of locations across the nation. This being the case, the
Navy cannot meet the condition under the Master Agreement that lands already under
[the DODs] administration are unsuitable or unavailable for an electronic warfare range.
Consequently, no mobile emitter sites in Olympic National Forest can be used for the
proposed EWR. In the proposed EIS, the Navy must also consider the impacts related to
both parts of Electronic Combat Electronic Surveillance and Electronic Attack. In the
informational meetings held in Forks and Port Angeles to explain the proposed EWR, the
Navy repeatedly stressed that training for Electronic Attack would not take place in the
2923
proposed EWR. Capt. Michael Nortier said the same in the Commentary mentioned
above. The official documents say otherwise. Specifically: Section 2.1.2 of the EA for the
proposed EWR, says The activities of the Proposed Action center on two divisions of
EW, known as electronic warfare support (ES) and electronic attack (EA); Section 1.3 of
the EA for the proposed EWR, and the related Forest Service and Navy FONSIs, say
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to maximize the ability of local units to achieve
their training requirements on local ranges; Section 4.2.1.3 of the EA for the proposed
EWR says The Wings mission is to support U.S. Naval Air Forces and the Unified
Command Structure by providing combatready Tactical Electronic Attack squadrons
which are fully trained, properly manned, interoperable, wellmaintained, and supported;
and The Proposed Action section of the Fall 2014 A Guide to the Scoping Meeting (for
the subject EIS) says The Navy is proposing to increase electronic attack (VAQ)
capabilities by adding up to 36 aircraft to support an expanded VAQ mission and training
at NAS Whidbey Island; and The VAQ Mission and Training section of the above
mentioned Guide says The missions of the VAQ squadrons include electronic
surveillance and attack against enemy radar and communications systems. This involves
the use of jamming equipment and anti-radiation missiles. The Growler has an advanced
electronic system that allows it to identify targets and protect itself from those targets.
The Navy cannot maximize the use of the proposed EWR, nor can it produce fully
trained combat-ready Tactical Electronic Attack squadrons on the proposed EWR
without electronic attack training being conducted there. Nor can the Navy meet the
Proposed Action and VAQ Mission and Training goals for the proposed action without
electronic attack training being conducted on the proposed EWR. The Navy must study
the impacts of this electronic attack training in the proposed EIS. It should also stop
denying its true intentions regarding electronic attack training in its public statements. In
the Navys informational meetings at Forks and Port Angeles on the proposed EWR, as
well as in the EA for the proposed EWR, it is suggested that EMF from the proposed
emitters would not be dangerous, in part because it was directed upwards and away from
any living thing that could be adversely affected by the EMF. The implication from this is
that EMF directed downwards, as it will be from Growlers training in the proposed EWR,
would be dangerous. Perhaps that is why the Navy chose not to address this element of
the proposed EWR in its environmental documents. NEPA, however, does not allow for
that exception. PPF is encouraged by the statement in the above mentioned Guide that:
A noise assessment will be conducted as part of the EIS and it will include a
supplemental noise analysis, a potential hearing-loss analysis, and an assessment of
non-auditory health effects. The supplemental noise analysis will include an evaluation of
sleep disturbance, indoor speech interference, and classroom learning interference. The
potential hearing loss analysis will focus on any portion of the local population that may
be exposed to noise levels greater than 80 DNL. Lastly, the assessment of non-auditory
health effects will consist of a comprehensive literature review. These studies, however,
must be done with real noise level data obtained from actual on ground measurements
under the actual, specifically located flight paths that the Growlers will travel, wherever
they travel, and at whatever power levels they travel, including all times when their
afterburners are operating. These studies must also be done by time of day and by time
of year. This latter consideration is particularly important in relation to nesting seasons for
endangered birds and tourist seasons for Olympic National Park and surrounding areas.
It is not sufficient to assume that training will take place at a constant number and
duration of flights throughout the year, unless in fact it does. These studies should
2923
include C-Weighted sound measurements and analysis, they must incorporate

Sound Level (Lmax), in addition to Ldn, and they must document the projected annual
impacted areas. These studies should also address the health effects of Startle
Reactions and the effects on a persons feelings of loss of control over their environment
when subjected to noise impacts beyond their control. The mention of certain impacts
herein, does not mean to imply that there are not other impacts to cover. The proposed
EIS must consider the full range of environmental issues and not eliminate any issues on
the basis of preliminary, incomplete studies that purport to reveal resources upon which
the proposed action is unlikely to have any potential environmental impacts. In the EA for
the proposed EWR, the exclusion of geology, water, land use, cultural, transportation
resources, and socioeconomics, and environmental justice and protection of children was
simply not excusable. In evaluating the impacts on Olympic National Park, the Navy
should pay special attention to the fact that the Park is a World Heritage site, an
International Biosphere Reserve, and the home of One Square Inch of Silence, one of the
quietest places in the United States. The Park includes the world's last remaining coastal
rainforest ecosystem of its kind. It is an irreplaceable cultural and natural resource. It is
also the economic hub of the Olympic Peninsula. No proposed action by the Navy should
adversely impact this treasure in any way. Because so much more should be evaluated
in the Proposed EIS than was presented in the Scoping documents, a whole new
Scoping evaluation should be conducted by the Navy, with another opportunity for the
public to comment. (b)(6)
. Freeland, WA 98249
2923
(b)(6)
2924
Lopez Island, WA
I live on the south side of Lopez Hill on Lopez Island and work outdoors. I find the noise
from the Growlers flying overhead to be physically uncomfortable and mentally
distracting. This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely
on, or tier off of, the Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
(b)(6)
2925
Lopez Island, WA
I live on the south side of Lopez Hill on Lopez Island and work outdoors. I find the noise
from the Growlers flying overhead to be physically uncomfortable and mentally
distracting. The EIS should study the following: A. Conduct continuous sound
measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period. B. Include
(b)(6)
2926

As a citizen of the Olympic Peninsula for 30+ years, I oppose the expansion of the Navy
Growlers! We have already experienced a dramatic reduction in quality of life due to the
noise of the Growlers which fly today. We were hoping they would be reduced, and sent
back to Mountain Home. Your practices are disruptive of human health, the environment
and all species which live in this region. There are significant impacts and we vehemently
oppose the plans for expansion. Is destroying our lives for your jobs the new American
way? What false war do you justify your actions upon? There are places for your war
practices that don't negatively affect hundreds of thousands of people, wildlife, families
and jobs - and it is not here on the Olympic Peninsula. Go away Growlers! No more
Growlers!
(b)(6)
2927

Please make actual measurements of the sound levels in San Juan county, especially e
southern portions most affected by the noise. It is horrible to be sitting in ones house and
continually have things shaking off the walls and not being able to carry on a
conversation.
(b)(6)
2928

The following comments are also enclosed in a letter postmarked January 8, 2015:
January 8, 2015 EA-18G EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(NAVFAC) Atlantic 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS
Dear Sir or Madam, We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Navys
upcoming Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the addition of 36 EA-18G
Growler jets to the fleet of 82 existing Growlers at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island
(NASWI.) The Port Townsend City Council supports the need for the Navy to properly
train and maintain a high state of proficiency and readiness to safeguard our nation and
the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces. We are seven members of the City
Council of Port Townsend, Washington, representing a city of approximately 9,200
residents in Jefferson County, Washington, located across Admiralty Inlet from Naval Air
Station Whidbey Island. As the legislative and policy-making body in city government, we
conduct our business in full view of the public, and as the elected representatives of this
community we provide the following comments (requested action items are shown in
Boldface): We do not believe that the way the Navy has conducted the public process
for this EIS, and how it relates to past iterations of this ongoing EIS and the
Environmental Assessment that evaluates proposed Navy operations in the Military
Operations Area in the Olympic National Forest complies with NEPAs requirement that
the effects of functionally-related activities must be assessed together. We do not
believe that the DEIS properly reflects the impacts of jet noise, pollution and other
stressors to the health and well-being of our community and our neighbors on the
Olympic Peninsula. We are concerned that some verbal assurances by Navy personnel
in public meetings are not clearly reflected in the written materials. We ask that all of
these concerns be addressed in the DEIS. With respect to the Public Process Our first
concern is that the Navy has separated the ground, air, and sea-based activities of its
proposed Electronic Warfare Testing and Training program on and around the Olympic
Peninsula into different public processes that have resulted in four separate comment
periods in the last five months of 2014: 1. August (Closed): The Navys Pacific Northwest
Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment, on use of roads in the Olympic
National Forest; 2. September November (Closed): The Forest Services decision on
whether to issue a Special Use Permit for the above; 3. Closes January 9: An EIS on the
Navys addition of 36 EA-18G Growler jets to its fleet of 82 Growlers already at NASWI;
4. Closes February 2: Changes to the EIS called Northwest Training and Testing Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, on
expansion of sonar and explosive activities in the training zone that includes the Strait
of Juan de Fuca, the waters off Indian Island, and the Olympic Coast National Marine
Sanctuary, which consists of 2,408 square nautical miles off Olympic Peninsula coastline.
Our constituents have told us that that they do not view these electronic warfare testing
and training activities as separate, and the Navys separation of them into four distinct
processes are causing widespread confusion and frustration. We realize that the current
EIS component is only about the additional 36 EA-18G Growler jets, but the air and
ground-based activities in this training program are far too closely related to be
considered separately. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
all federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement whenever they
functionally related must be included. A 1988 Master Agreement between the
Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture requires the Forest Service
to study both the impacts of the proposed land-based training activities and the impacts
of the proposed use of airspace if directly associated with the land based training. So
the separation of ground and air-based activities into different study processes, one an
EA and one an EIS, in which the public must restrict comments to narrowly defined
subject areas, goes against both NEPA and the Master Agreement. We ask you to fulfill
the stipulations of the Master Agreement and the requirements of NEPA, and include a
thorough study of all impacts of the Electronic Warfare Range in the DEIS. Another part
of the Master Agreement authorized military use of National Forest lands only if that use
is compatible with other uses and in conformity with applicable forest plans, provided
the Department of Defense determines and substantiates that lands under its
administration are unsuitable or unavailable. NASWI is already conducting electronic
warfare training at several Department of Defense bases in the Northwest that include
restricted airspace and nearly half a million acres of land. Only one, the Fallon Training
Range Complex, is mentioned, in a single paragraph on page 2-9 of the EA. This does
not qualify as the kind of substantiation required by the Master Agreement. Also, Capt.
Michael Nortier, the commanding officer at NASWI, stated as a Guest Columnist in the
Whidbey Island News-Times on December 17, 2014 and in the Port Townsend Leader on
December 24, 2014, The armed services have decades of experience successfully
operating similar fixed and mobile emitters at a variety of locations across the nation.
This being the case, the Navy cannot meet the condition under the Master Agreement
that lands already under [the DODs] administration are unsuitable or unavailable for an
electronic warfare range. We are in possession of letters from the Boards of Supervisors
in Humboldt, Marin and Mendocino Counties in California, that express deep concerns
about being unaware of the Navys training plans along those coasts until late into the
process, and later, questioning why their concerns were never addressed in the Navys
final NEPA documents. We are worried about similar results happening here. Any public
process must be a good faith effort. No notices about the Navys comment period for its
Environmental Assessment (EA) were published in any newspapers that directly serve
communities on the North Olympic Peninsula or West End. None of the hundreds of
citizen comments that were given at public informational meetings (which occurred only
because of the insistence of Congressman Derek Kilmer) were ever recorded for the
official record. In its public outreach materials for the Olympic Peninsula, the Navy shows
the 15 locations proposed for the use of the emitters using a map that erases Lake
Quinault, all major rivers, and all boundaries between the Olympic National Forest and
Olympic National Park. If helping the public understand exactly where the emitters are to
be located was the purpose of the map, then why was so much important detail omitted?
We question the transparency of the Navys public process, and in particular, how it
justifies the fact that after a comment period on its EA that was half the 30-day minimum
length recommended by NEPA, it issued immediately after and continues to stand by, a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that includes this statement: The Navy
received no comments from individuals, elected officials, government organizations, or
Native American Tribes in response to the Draft EA. Once the public became aware of
the Navys plans, more than 3,000 comments poured in during the October-November
comment period on whether the Forest Service should issue a Special Use Permit for use
of its roads, thus refuting any previous implications that public concern is lacking. With
2928
these problems in mind, we would like to see the FONSI revisited and an EIS process
initiated to combine all of the functionally-related proposed activities, and to address
concerns that have been raised about potential impacts to the health, economic and
ecological values of all communities and public lands that will be affected. Local Noise
Impact Our second major concern is with noise. Over the past several years there has
been a marked increase in jet noise around the Olympic Peninsula. Flights at
OLF-Coupeville increased from 3,200 in 2010 to 13,300 in 2012. The number of flights is
likely to increase given the relocation of the nations entire Growler fleet to NASWI, and
the fact that the Navy has embarked on a contract to train foreign pilots at NASWI.
Although the Navy is authorized to fly at 6000 feet above mean sea level, its pilots are
allowed to fly as low as 1200 feet above ground level over some parts of the Olympic
Military Operating Area (MOA,) which occupies the airspace over the Olympic National
Forest and Olympic National Park. Additionally, Growlers taking off and landing at
NASWI are more likely to fly at lower altitudes over Port Townsend, thus creating more
noise. The Navy uses the Day-Night Average Sound Level calculation to assess noise
levels, but uses a jet engine placed on a test platform and a computer modeled
calculation rather than an actual jet. Using a similar method to what the FAA uses at
commercial airports, the Navy averages the noise levels over 365 days that include quiet
periods in order to calculate noise levels. Growlers can produce enough noise to cause
hearing loss. They are capable of speeds of 1400 mph, and unlike the subsonic Prowlers
they are replacing, which can fly at 600 mph, Growlers are capable of producing sonic
booms, which have been described at public meetings by residents of communities on
the West End. Navy statistics for older jets say they can produce 113 decibels at an
altitude of 1000 feet, which is above the human pain threshold. No accurate sound
measurements for Growlers have been provided by the Navy to other agencies or to the
public. Since the fuselage, external instruments and weapons attachments on a jet create
additional noise to that of the engine, especially at takeoff and landing, and since
afterburners are frequently used but have not been included in any noise level
calculations, we ask that this be rectified with more accurate noise measurements that
use a more realistic means of feedback. Computer modeling that averages noise over a
year of quiet periods reflects neither the aforementioned aspects nor the episodically
extreme nature of Growler jet noise. Federal and state agencies rely on the Navys noise
data to assess potential impacts to threatened and endangered species. If such
measurements do not reflect the realities of Growler jet noise, documentation of their
application in assessing impacts may be invalid. There has been no discussion or
documentation from the Navy on impacts to property values or tourism-based economies
from jet noise, and we ask that these analyses be included in the DEIS. We are aware of
the devastating impact on from jet noise on the real estate market at North Whidbey
Island, and have similar concerns for Port Townsend. These concerns also include
economic impacts to our tourism-based economy. There are numerous peer-reviewed
scientific studies, including reports by the Environmental Protection Agency, the World
Health Organization, and the US Department of Transportation, on the health effects of
aircraft noise and pollution. The DEIS must address these issues using a thorough
analysis of existing scientific literature. Clarify Training Operations The EA is inconsistent
in providing assurance that electronic attack weapons will not be used as part of the
training exercises. The Olympic Peninsula is no longer lightly populated as it once was
when the Military Operating Areas were established, and places like Olympic National
Park receive more than 3 million visitors per year who spend hundreds of millions of
2928
dollars in surrounding communities. If visitors become concerned that they may be

entering a warfare training range where weapons such as lasers or high-powered
microwaves or EMPs are being used overhead, tourism and the revenues from it could
drop off drastically. At several public meetings the Navy has stated that no electronic
attack weapons will be fired, yet in Section 4.2.1.3 of the EA it says the mission is to
provide combat-ready Tactical Electronic Attack squadrons which are fully trained. We
ask that the DEIS incorporate written assurances that no electronic attack weapons will
be fired during training missions in or near Olympic National Park, in conformance with
the verbal statements provided at the public meetings. Summary The Pacific Northwest
Electronic Warfare Range covers more than just the Olympic National Park and Olympic
National Forest; it also includes DNR, Tribal and private lands in western Clallam,
Jefferson and Grays Harbor Counties, as well as off-lying waters that include the Olympic
National Marine Sanctuary plus the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound. Anything
less than a full analysis of all impacts from the Navys Electronic Warfare Testing and
Training program in all of these areas would be less than adequate. We do not write this
letter in isolation from our constituents. On behalf of the City of Port Townsend, we ask
that ALL impacts of the Navys Electronic Warfare Testing and Training program be
discussed in one comprehensive document, and that the stipulations of the 1988 Master
Agreement be followed. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. FOR
THE CITY COUNCIL OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON David King Mayor cc:
Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations Honorable Ray Mabus, Secretary
of the Navy Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture Honorable Patty Murray,
U.S. Senator Honorable Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator Honorable Derek Kilmer, U.S.
Representative Honorable James Hargrove, Washington State Senator Honorable Steve
Tharinger, Washington State Representative Honorable Kevin Van De Wege,
Washington State Representative
2928
(b)(6)
2929

Several years ago, as a wildlife biologist, I monitored spotted owls and marbled murrletts
for the BLM. As a biologist I can assure you that our studies showed the sensitive nature
and tentative options for these and many other species, because of the destruction and
use of their nesting and breeding habitat. Loud noises and invasion of their habitat has a
major impact. I can assure you that the navy's plan to buy more growlers and send more
flights over some of the ONLY remaining suitable habitat for these and other species
WILL have detrimental and probably catastrophic consequences. There are a bunch of
other reasons not to purchase these planes We live on a relatively isolated and pristine
peninsula we who live here want to keep it that way Their use in training takes our
tranquility. The fuel consumption threatens the environment climate change. There are
other ways to make peace in the world rather than gaming for war. These sorts of tactics
threatens nuclear war We should not be supporting the militaristic economic machine.
Not enough is being done to plan for a positive, sustainable future for our children and
generations to come. Use that money for education instead. Educate people for peace!
Etc.,etc.,etc., - many many many other reasons and ideas for a healthy environment and
peaceful world
(b)(6)
2930

My husband and I are very concerned about the drastic change in our lives due to the
introduction of Growlers to the San Juan Islands. What used to be an idyllic and peaceful
place has become anything but. We are subjected to screaming noise and vibrations that
shake the house and injure our health. We on the islands depend on tourist trade for our
lively hoods and the tourists are getting the word. We own a business on Lopez and are
very concerned and our property values are going to drop as well. There has been a
lawsuit initiated recently against a realty company on the islands saying that the buyer
had not been told about the horrific noise. There have also been sightings of jets
dumping fuel in our environmentally sensitive waters. The pilots from your base told us
that this was not allowed, but it happens. There are so many unpopulated desolate
places in our state, where practicing with these jets could take place such as the Yakima
Firing Range or Moses Lake. There are also other states with miles and miles of
unpopulated desert. This is affecting our health and financial well being. One way or
another, this simply must end.
2931
,
I respectfully request that this EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and
should not rely on, or tier off of, the Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2932
,
I respectfully request the EIS address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom,
Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2933
,
I respectfully request that the EIS address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in
the study area including San Juan County should document the extent of this problem.
0800 hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2934
,
I respectfully request the EIS study the following: A. Conduct continuous sound
(b)(6)
2935
,
I respectfully request the EIS address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should
including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier
Approaches (CCA). Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2936
,
I respectfully request that at a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully
Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion. Growler training flight paths from
greatest extent possible. Growler training flights over populated areas including San
Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. Afterburners should not be used on
Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush
and testing. Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric
F414 engines used on the Growlers. Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training
(b)(6)
2937
,
I respectfully request that the EIS address the health effects of Startle Reactions.
County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. Sincerely(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2938
,
I respectfully request the EIS specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children.
School and Lopez Village. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2939
,
I respectfully request the EIS fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers
at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2940

We retired to Lopez Island in 2006 to invest in a quiet peaceful life surrounded by nature.
There was some occasional jet noise at that time. However, esp this last 2 years, the jet
noise from Whidbey is at times overwhelming - the low grumble and vibration sometimes
lasting all day, the flyovers (north end of Lopez) esp when low cloud cover - the noise is
almost unbearable! - The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the
southern portion of San Juan County over a one-month period. - The EIS should consider
the impacts of low frequency noise - The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition
to daily averages - The EIS should consider health effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of
Control, Sleep Disturbance and Impacts on Children - The EIS should fully evaluate one
or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. The EIS should evaluate noise mitigation measures such as minimize flight routes over or
near populated areas and to fly above 3,000 feet; deploy a Hush House or Ground
Run-up Enclosure; deploy noise suppression measures for the Growler engines; notify
citizens in advance of Growler training operations at Ault Field. - This EIS should conduct
all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the deficient analysis
and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Thank you
for your consideration. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2941

Excessive noise over Lopez Island and SJC from 8:30am through 8:30 pm. Noise levels
continuous and constant, concerns about health and long term impact to property values
At the very least the US Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the
southern portion of SJC over a one-month period. Include C Weighted sound
including San Juan County. *Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include
(b)(6)
2942

I have owned property on the north end of Lopez Island since 1998 and retired here in
2006. My full intention was to enjoy a peaceful investment in a pristine natural area. The
jet noise coming from Whidbey growlers over the past year especially is cause for
concern as it definitely interferes with my life on Lopez. The rumble and vibration that
interrupts our day, the flyovers that stop conversation - we are on edge and often
consistently irritated with this background stress. - The Navy should conduct continuous
sound measurements in the southern portion of San Juan County over a one-month
period. - The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency noise - The EIS should
include peak noise levels in addition to daily averages - The EIS should consider health
effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of Control, Sleep Disturbance and Impacts on Children The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location
other than NAS Whidbey Island. - The EIS should evaluate noise mitigation measures
such as minimize flight routes over or near populated areas and to fly above 3,000 feet;
deploy a Hush House or Ground Run-up Enclosure; deploy noise suppression measures
for the Growler engines; notify citizens in advance of Growler training operations at Ault
Field. - This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or
tier off of, the deficient analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments. Thank you for your consideration.(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2943

We are in total support of NAS Whidbey Growler squadrons. They add so much to our
community. It is thrilling to see them flying. We want them to be able to train to insure
their safety. We are grateful for their dedication to our country. Count us on the side of
our Navy. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2944

Greetings, I have already written to protest the horribly loud disturbance to the peace and
quiet of our community caused by the Growlers flying over our island. In this note, I will
try to be more specific in what I am asking the Navy to do. I have lived mid-island on
Lopez since 1994. In the last year noise and over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field
has exceeded anything we have experienced. All the reasons we have chosen to live
here are being degraded by the constant noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of
Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County a no significant impact area. This is
clearly false! - The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the
the impacts of low frequency noise. - The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition
to daily averages. - The EIS should consider health effects of startle reaction, loss of
control, sleep disturbance and impacts on children -- not to mention wildlife. Our Orca
whales are dying. - The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases
Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. - The EIS should evaluate noise
mitigation measures such as minimize flight routes over or near populated areas and to
fly above 3,000 feet; deploy a Hush House or Ground Run-up Enclosure; deploy noise
suppression measures for the Growler engines; notify citizens in advance of Growler
training operations at Ault Field. - This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning
and should not rely on, or tier off of, the deficient analysis and Records of Decision for the
2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments.
(b)(6)
2945
Redmond, WA 98052
My family has greatly enjoyed our time on Lopez Island since 1993. That has changed
measurably in recent months. We have a cottage on the south end of the island. Both the
intensity of aircraft sound and frequency of occurrence have dramatically increased of
late, and disturbed and disrupted this tranquil island setting. That calming setting drew us
to the island originally. Surely the Navy can appreciate the need, benefit, and duty to be
good citizens and neighbors. I understand there are a number of measures that could be
taken to minimize and reduce the already intolerable aircraft noise impacts. Implementing
those could go a long way in restoring good will. Clearly expanding the fleet and
increasing the number of flights will only further inflame the Navy's neighbors. I am a
proud patriot that understands the need for the military. But surely there are means to
avoid the further degradation of our living space, and restore some prior level of
tranquility.
(b)(6)
2946

I've lived at the south end of Lopez full time since 2006. The noise from the planes have
always been a nuisance, but now I find it threatening. When people tell me, it is the
'sound of freedom', I have to say, to me it has become very frightening. I feel like the
noise is always there. - The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the
and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Please do
something. Thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2947
MOUNT VERNON, WA 982737169

The EIS should evaluate the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of increasing the
number of EA-18G Growlers at NAS Whidbey Island on human health, quality of life,
recreation, and economic issues in Skagit, San Juan and Island Counties. Noise
concerns: As a resident of western Skagit County, living on the north fork of the Skagit
River, I am on the direct flight path for inbound aircraft landing from the east at Ault Field.
In order to really appreciate the full impact of the noise from these aircraft, noise studies
conducted for the EIS should include actual ground-based data and, in western Skagit
County, should be sampled aft of the aircraft as they are approaching NASWI. Computer
modeling is insufficient. The EIS should examine the options for limiting the timing and
duration of training exercises. We experience late night exercises the last from two to
three hours of continuous flights that make conversation impossible and disrupt sleep.
These have an adverse impact on our quality of life and, for those more sensitive to
noise, the health consequences are significant. The EIS should also address the
feasibility of mitigating noise impact by modifying the planes using chevron technology
now being tested to muffle jet noise. Social and economic concerns: There will be a
significant increase in the population of Oak Harbor and surrounding areas with the
proposed expansion of NASWI operations. The EIS should consider the impact of this
increase on infrastructure and services, and not just in Oak Harbor in Island County but in
the region that NASWI families rely on for employment, health care, shopping, and other
services, which includes Skagit County. The base is located on an island accessible only
by a bridge nine miles to the north and ferry thirty-eight miles to the south. The historic
bridge at Deception Pass, built in 1935, spans a dramatic passageway between Whidbey
and Fidalgo Islands and already experiences very heavy traffic volumes. There are
already dangerous back-ups at the intersection at Sharps Corner where Highway 20
turns south toward Whidbey Island. Even worse traffic congestion seems a likely result of
increased population in Oak Harbor as families access services and employment not
available on the island. The EIS should explore these concerns and discuss the
implications for county, state and federal transportation budgets. Other infrastructure and
service concerns that should be addressed include health care available in the region,
specifically Island Hospital in Anacortes. For instance, only minor procedures are
performed at Naval Hospital Oak Harbor, while major surgery and endoscopy are
performed at Island Hospital. The EIS should examine what impact increased population
will have on Island Hospital and discuss how the Navy contributes to the development
and maintenance of facilities that are otherwise supported by taxpayers in Skagit County
Public Hospital District 2. Boating, fishing, hiking, camping and other recreational
opportunities are important to visitors and residents of the region. The EIS should
consider the cumulative impact of increasing flight operations at NASWI on the character
and quality of recreational experiences in Washingtons highly-prized San Juan Islands
and Skagit River delta, not to mention the states most popular state park at Deception
Pass and the National Historic Reserve at Ebeys Landing. Long-term planning: The EIS
should examine the potential for additional growth at NASWI and the larger context for
industrial development in the area. How does the proposed action to increase the number
of EA-18G Growlers fit into the larger picture of current and foreseeable steps to
developing NASWI as a more significant base for naval air operations on the West Coast
and in the Pacific region? What is the cumulative affect of expanding NASWI operations
when taking other development plans, such as expanding refinery operations at March
Point, into consideration?
2947
(b)(6)
2948

The noise level is acceptable to myself and my family. We live in the middle of Lopez
Island in San Juan County.
(b)(6)
2949

1.)Please determine the extent to which there exists a risk for disproportionately high and
adverse health effects on elderly populations from Growler aircraft noise. Please refer to
the work of F. Dominici, professor of biostatistics and associate dean for research at
Harvard School of Public Health, which estimates a 3.5 percent increase in the
cardovascular hospitalization rate for every 10 dB increase in airport-related noise. 2.)
The geographical area of effect for disturbance from noise extends well beyond the
extremely high decibel level areas proximate to air fields. Emphasis on decibel levels in
sound metrics used for modeling are pertinent to noise-induced hearing loss, but they fail
to address other non-auditory noise-induced health impacts, which affect populations
residing at a much greater distance from the base, and occur at lower dB levels. (It is a
fact of physics that sound carries farther over water. The unique geography of this region
must be taken into account in this EIS).
(b)(6)
2950
,
The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of
San Juan County over a one-month period.
(b)(6)
2951
,
The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency noise
(b)(6)
2952
,
The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition to daily averages
(b)(6)
2953
,
The EIS should consider health effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of Control, Sleep
Disturbance and Impacts on Children and the ELDERLY.
(b)(6)
2954

over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything we have experienced.
vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County a
no significant impact area. This is clearly false. - The Navy should conduct continuous
(b)(6)
2955
,
other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2956
,
The EIS should evaluate noise mitigation measures such as minimize flight routes over or
citizens in advance of Growler training operations at Ault Field.
(b)(6)
2957
,
of, the deficient analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments.
(b)(6)
2958

Hello, Questions/comments 1. Why do Growlers not test at sea, or over areas that are
not populated or populated extremely lightly? 2. Aren't there laws about flying such
intensely polluting (noise pollution) machines in populated areas? Thanks, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2959
COMMENTS on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) EA-18G Growler Airfield
Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Not being a very vocal in-your-face
person, Im finally getting around to commenting on the Outlying Field (OLF) 2 miles
south of Coupeville. Right now we Central Whidbey residents are being portrayed as
Anti-American, unpatriotic for our concerns about the very noisy Growlers now flying
touch-and-goes at OLF. WE ARE NOT! History of NAS Whidbey and the Outlying Field
Maybe I should begin by looking at this situation historically. Many of my relatives were
living on Whidbey BEFORE the Navys presence in 1941. The only area initially affected
was the Oak Harbor with the presence of the seaplane base. Ault Field wasnt even
thought of then. The PBYs were very quiet prop planes, creating much less of an impact
on the community than the Prowlers and Growlers of the present. US Naval Air Station
Whidbey was commissioned in September of 1942. This land of over 4,000 acres was
turned over to the government by the many farmers doing their part to help in the war
effort of World War II. Patriotic fervor ran very high in the early 40s. However, MANY
ASSUMED THIS WAS TEMPORARY. In fact, many in Washington DC also felt this way.
Even in the late 40s NAS Whidbey, originally commissioned as a temporary station, was
still earmarked for decommissioning. Two things changed this: First Sand Point Naval Air
Station could not be expanded to meet the Navys needs, and secondly much more patrol
activity was needed due to the escalation of the Korean Conflict. Now, what about
Outlying Field Coupeville? OLF was approved in 1943 not as part of NAS Whidbey but as
an auxiliary field serving NAS Seattle. Even as late as 1965 (50 years ago) OLF was on
the chopping block. And in the 70s and 80s very little activity took place at OLF, a period
of time when many of todays residents moved to Central Whidbey. And when NAS
Whidbey twice was on the closure list, who came out in force to persuade the
government to keep Ault Field open. All the many businesses who moved here to reap
the monetary rewards created by having a Naval base on Whidbey; our many pork-barrel
politicians who took the credit for making North Whidbey an economically sound area,
and the many Naval and civilian workers who were making good salaries here at NAS
Whidbey. However, many of us on South and Central Whidbey settled here because it
was a beautiful and peaceful area to raise families or retire. We are not interested in what
NAS Whidbey has done, is will do for us. The Navys Responsibility to Our Island
Community I, personally, am not asking for the closure of NAS Whidbey. I would not be
unhappy if that happened. I am, however, asking that NAS Whidbey become more
community-minded. If the businesses of Oak Harbor reap the rewards if the residents
of North Whidbey (mostly Naval) love NOISE if our elected officials all want to see an
expanded NAS Whidbey - why not make sure that expansion occurs up north and not all
over Whidbey Island, Camano Island, Port Townsend and the San Juans? I have always
felt that the powers-that-be at the base do not want jet noise near their homes. Thats
why more and more of flying is done at OLF. BY CHOICE Naval personnel and civilian
workers have made the Navy their career. Having the jets and its noise nearby is part of
the package. We, however, did not choose noise. What do I mean by becoming more
community minded? Here are just a few suggestions: 1. Shouldnt we have been
involved with decision-making when the Navy made the decision to circle OLF with those
hideous cement blocks? Im pretty sure it could have been much less obtrusive if
someone other than a jet pilot was involved with the design. 2. Shouldnt we be involved
in what happens at Lake Hancock near Greenbank? I know it couldnt be turned over to
the community due to the many unspent rounds of devices still on the property from the
bombing practices of the 50s and 60s. Doesnt the government/Navy have the
responsibility of cleaning up a hazardous-waste site once its abandoned? Its been 40
years!! And now the lake is a major breeding ground for mosquitos which make it
impossible for nearby residents to be outside during the summer months when these
millions of mosquitos are present. 3. Couldnt night flying occur during the late fall and
winter when touch-and-goes can happen? (between 4 and 8 pm and not between 10 pm
and 2 am when were trying to sleep) With technology as prevalent as it is in todays
world, why cant more of the jet touch-and-go practices happen on simulators and not in
the sky. Friends of mine who worked here with Grumman were optimistic about the use
of simulators back in the early 90s. A concerted effort funded by building one less
Growler could put this on a fast track. The techies are there waiting for the funding. 4.
What about also spending some of that monetary windfall to make Growlers much quieter
when practicing? I know Shock and Awe is important, but why here on Whidbey? Im
still not sold on the effort put out by the government to solve this noise problem. It seems
quite glitzy. I will try and stay optimistic hoping this effort will produce many positive
results.
2959
(b)(6)
2960

Re: Scoping Comments on the Fall 2014 U.S. Navy EIS for the EA-18G Growler Airfield
Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island. My wife and I live approx. 15
miles SSW of Ault field. We are already impacted by Navy Growler operations. At night,
sometimes past midnight, I am awakened when jets are training. 15 miles is approx. the
distance from SeaTac airport to Edmunds. If you would have asked if I wanted to move
where I would be impacted by jet noise, I would never have thought I would at 15 miles.
Your drawings of flight paths do not seem to take into account the true flight paths of the
jets. The impacts extend to the flight paths of the jets to locales such as the west end of
the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the NWEWR. Why is that not in the NEPA info? I have
read the Navys EA for the EWR states at Page 2-8: All of the EW training activities and
locations that would be associated with the implementation of the Pacific Northwest EW
Range were analyzed in the NWTRC EIS/OEIS. The NWTRC EIS/OEIS has an October
2010 Record of Decision that approved an alternative that included EW training activities
associated with the establishment of a fixed emitter in the Pacific Beach area. Current
training levels in the Olympic MOAs and W237 will remain the same as per the NWTRC
EIS/OEIS, and any changes to the type or tempo of training conducted in the Olympic
MOAs and W237 will be addressed in the Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT)
EIS/OEIS. However, neither statement is accurate. That the NWTRC EIS does not
evaluate the activities contemplated by the proposed EWR is apparent from the following
tables: Table 3.2-2 lists the emission sources for all training activities evaluated by the
NWTRC EIS. The only emission sources listed for Electronic Combat are from aircraft
and ships or boats. There are no emission sources listed for ground based mobile
emitters. Had the activities contemplated by the proposed EWR been evaluated by the
NWTRC EIS, the ground based mobile emitters should have been listed here as an
emission source. Table 3.3-8 lists, by activity and training area, the stressors and
hazardous materials that would be associated with the activities evaluated by the
NWTRC EIS. For Electronic Combat the only areas listed are the Darrington Area and
W-237. Had the activities contemplated by the proposed EWR been evaluated by the
NWTRC EIS, the Olympic MOAs should have been listed here as a training area. Table
3.16-1 lists by Range and Training Site, the training environment and the type of training
activity covered by the NWTRC EIS. For Electronic Combat the only area listed is W-327.
Had the activities contemplated by the proposed EWR been evaluated by the NWTRC
EIS, the Olympic MOAs would should have been listed here as a training area. Table
3.16-2 lists by warfare type the area in which it would be conducted. For Electronic
Combat the only areas listed are W-237a and the Darrington Area. Had the activities
contemplated by the proposed EWR been evaluated by the NWTRC EIS, the Olympic
MOAs would should have been listed here as a training area. That the NWTT EIS did not
evaluate the activities contemplated by the proposed EWR is apparent from the following
statements: At Page 2-3 it says The land resources affected by the use of the Olympic
MOAs A and B will be evaluated as they are directly impacted by overflights for at-sea
activities; At Page 3.6-18 it says The training activities involving aircraft in the Olympic
MOAs evaluated in this EIS/OEIS are similar to the training evaluated in the NWTRC
EIS. With Electronic Combat training in the Olympic MOAs not having been evaluated in
the NWTRC EIS, this sentence demonstrates it was not evaluated in the NWTT either. I
expect the Navy in the proposed EIS to evaluate the impacts of the Growlers, both in the
area between Whidbey Island and the proposed EWR, and in the area of the proposed
EWR, with the same intensity and specificity it evaluates the impacts of the Growlers in
the Whidbey Island area. In this regard, a diagram on the right side of the Growler
Operations page of the Scoping Meeting Guide is helpful. It shows a detailed portrayal of
the flight paths of planes using the OLF for Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP). It is
commendable that the Navy has gone to such extents to study the impacts of the 36 new
Growlers at OLF. However, the same detailed portrayal of flight paths of planes going to
and returning from, and using the proposed EWR, is essential for a proper evaluation of
the impacts in those locations. Because there are 15mobile emitter sites in the proposed
EWR, and one fixed emitter site, there are essentially 16 OLFs in the proposed EWR. A
detailed portrayal of flight paths for each of the 16 proposed emitter sites is needed. The
same is true of every possible flight path to and from the proposed EWR. With neither the
NWTRC EIS nor the NWTT EIS having evaluated Electronic Combat in the Olympic
MOAs, or aircraft flights in the area between Whidbey Island and those MOAs, the
impacts of the 82 or so Growlers currently at NASWI, as well as the proposed 36 new
Growlers, must now be evaluated in the proposed EIS. Prior to preparing an EIS as
suggested above, the Navy should consider that the Master Agreement referred to above
authorized military use of National Forest lands only if that use is compatible with
other uses and in conformity with applicable forest plans, provided the Department of
Defense determines and substantiates that lands under its administration are unsuitable
or unavailable. NASWI is already conducting electronic warfare training at several
Department of Defense bases in the Northwest that include restricted airspace and nearly
half a million acres of land. Only one, the Fallon Training Range Complex, is mentioned,
in a single paragraph on page 2-9 of the EA for the proposed EWR. This does not qualify
as the kind of determination and substantiation required by the Master Agreement. Also,
Capt. Michael Nortier, the commanding officer at NASWI, stated in a Commentary in the
Peninsula Daily News on December 26, 2014, that The armed services have decades of
experience successfully operating similar fixed and mobile emitters at a variety of
locations across the nation. This being the case, the Navy cannot meet the condition
under the Master Agreement that lands already under [the DODs] administration are
unsuitable or unavailable for an electronic warfare range. Consequently, no mobile
emitter sites in Olympic National Forest can be used for the proposed EWR. In the
proposed EIS, the Navy must also consider the impacts related to both parts of Electronic
Combat Electronic Surveillance and Electronic Attack. In the informational meetings
held in Forks and Port Angeles to explain the proposed EWR, the Navy repeatedly
stressed that training for Electronic Attack would not take place in the proposed EWR.
Capt. Michael Nortier said the same in the Commentary mentioned above. The official
documents say otherwise. Specifically: Section 2.1.2 of the EA for the proposed EWR,
says The activities of the Proposed Action center on two divisions of EW, known as
electronic warfare support (ES) and electronic attack (EA); Section 1.3 of the EA for the
proposed EWR, and the related Forest Service and Navy FONSIs, say The purpose of
the Proposed Action is to maximize the ability of local units to achieve their training
requirements on local ranges; Section 4.2.1.3 of the EA for the proposed EWR says
The Wings mission is to support U.S. Naval Air Forces and the Unified Command
Structure by providing combatready Tactical Electronic Attack squadrons which are fully
trained, properly manned, interoperable, wellmaintained, and supported; and The
Proposed Action section of the Fall 2014 A Guide to the Scoping Meeting (for the subject
2960
EIS) says The Navy is proposing to increase electronic attack (VAQ) capabilities by
adding up to 36 aircraft to support an expanded VAQ mission and training at NAS
Whidbey Island; and The VAQ Mission and Training section of the above mentioned
Guide says The missions of the VAQ squadrons include electronic surveillance and
attack against enemy radar and communications systems. This involves the use of
jamming equipment and anti-radiation missiles. The Growler has an advanced electronic
system that allows it to identify targets and protect itself from those targets. The Navy
cannot maximize the use of the proposed EWR, nor can it produce fully trained
combat-ready Tactical Electronic Attack squadrons on the proposed EWR without
electronic attack training being conducted there. Nor can the Navy meet the Proposed
Action and VAQ Mission and Training goals for the proposed action without electronic
attack training being conducted on the proposed EWR. The Navy must study the impacts
of this electronic attack training in the proposed EIS. It should also stop denying its true
intentions regarding electronic attack training in its public statements. In the Navys
informational meetings at Forks and Port Angeles on the proposed EWR, as well as in
the EA for the proposed EWR, it is suggested that EMF from the proposed emitters would
not be dangerous, in part because it was directed upwards and away from any living
thing that could be adversely affected by the EMF. The implication from this is that EMF
directed downwards, as it will be from Growlers training in the proposed EWR, would be
dangerous. Perhaps that is why the Navy chose not to address this element of the
proposed EWR in its environmental documents. NEPA, however, does not allow for that
exception. In evaluating the impacts on Olympic National Park, the Navy should pay
special attention to the fact that the Park is a World Heritage site, an International
Biosphere Reserve, and the home of One Square Inch of Silence, one of the quietest
places in the United States. The Park includes the world's last remaining coastal
public to comment. I also would urge the Navy to consider that when the base was
originally sited,decades ago, the area in the north Puget Sound and Straits was
significantly less populated than today. There should be a consideration as to whether
the basing of future expansion of this location is in keeping with the needs of the Navy
and the civilian population. I would suggest that it does not. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(I am
resubmitting this as it appears that your web site crashed when I pressed the submit
button. This is the second submission).
2960
(b)(6)
2961

I live on the south end of Lopez Island, having moved here in the last few years for health
reasons and to live in a quieter environment. In the last year noise and over-flights from
the Growlers at Ault field has destroyed all peace and quiet. All the reasons I chose to
live here plus my health are being degraded by the constant noise, vibration and intrusive
over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County a no significant impact
area. This is clearly and completely false. - The Navy should conduct continuous sound
measurements in the southern portion of San Juan County over a one-month period. The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency noise - The EIS should include
peak noise levels in addition to daily averages - The EIS should consider health effects of
Startle Reaction, Loss of Control, Sleep Disturbance and Impacts on Children - The EIS
than NAS Whidbey Island. - The EIS should evaluate noise mitigation measures such as
minimize flight routes over or near populated areas and to fly above 3,000 feet; deploy a
Hush House or Ground Run-up Enclosure; deploy noise suppression measures for the
Growler engines; notify citizens in advance of Growler training operations at Ault Field. This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off
Assessments
(b)(6)
2962
Carlsborg, WA 98324
January 8, 2015 RE: Scoping Comments on the Fall 2014 Navy EIS for 36 new EA-18G
Growlers to be stationed at Navy Air Station Whidbey Island. I live in the Sequim Prairie
area of Clallam County where we have noted the increased use of this area as a flight
path for the Navys Growlers. The addition of 36 Growlers to this area is of concern to me
and others who live, work, hike and recreate in the Sequim area and in the Olympic
National Park and Forest areas. Specifically, I request that the Navy expand the scope of
its EIS into these areas: 1. Include all of the overflight areas that the Growlers currently
use as well as those proposed in this draft EIS, not just the areas around Whidbey Island
and San Juan Islands. This will need to cover the entire north shore communities of the
Olympic Peninsula, Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest, and inland coastal
areas from Neah Bay down to Pacific Beach. The reason for this request is that in the
earlier EW Range EA it was stated: All of the EW training activities and locations that
would be associated with the implementation of the Pacific Northwest EW Range were
analyzed in the NWTRC EIS/OEIS. A careful reading of the NWTRC 2010 Final
EIS/OEIS turned up no evidence that an EIS was done for the activities and locations
described in the EW Range EA. I found 18 examples of this deficiency, among them:
2.4.1.4 This is the description of Electronic Combat activities and what locations they are
looking at in this document: Darrington area, and OLF Coupeville. As well, the use of
EP-3 and EA-6B aircraft are proposed to be studied, not the E-18G Growler. This left out
the Olympic MOAs where the EW Range emitters will be located. Table 3-1 Summary of
Potential Stressors: Electronic Combat is listed as a stressor and the only training areas
studied are W-237 and PACNW OPAREA. On the map included with that document it is
only the Olympic MOA that would cover the locations of the EW Range. 3.3.2.4.11
Aviation Fuel and Other Propellants Total number of sorties and the relative proportion
among the aircraft types would remain unchanged from the No Action Alternative. (Pg.
3.3-45) This is of course, patently untrue if this EIS statement was actually supposed to
cover the activities of the EW Range. In the EW Range EA it is stated that the number of
events per year would be 2,900. There is no indication of how many aircraft are involved
in each event, but we can assume it will be at least one which is a significant change
from what is happening currently (the No Action Alternative). There are many more
citations along these lines in the NWTRC EIS/OEIS that indicate that the affects of the
Growlers on proposed EW Range areas have not been studied. NEPA requirements
mandate that all locations and activities be covered by adequate EIS. For this reason I
request that the impact of Growlers be expanded to include the locations mentioned
above. Include all issues that were not addressed in the NWTRC EIS or NWTT EIS in
this expanded study, ie. the effects of Growlers on jet fuel pollution, tourism, property
values, human health and safety, endangered species and environmental degradation. I
request that this Growler EIS include the impact of the current 82 Growlers as well as the
proposed 36 additional jets because these studies have been left out of all
documentation for the EW Range locations and activities. 2. Include in this EIS an
analysis of jet impacts at the lowest floor level of 1250 feet above land and 300 feet
above sea at 3nm distance from the coast. I noted in reading the Navys EIS documents
that they will often mention that one of their activities could have negative effects, but that
the jets will not be flying at a low enough altitude frequently enough to cause harm.
These assumptions are not backed up by research. Another reason for this request is
that Navy jets have been seen, heard and felt by hikers and visitors to ONP and ONF,
and by residents in various areas of Washington State, at levels below 1250 feet. They
have been spotted flying lower than hiking trails in ravines, below tree-top level, and
close to the sea at distances close enough to the coast to make staying on a beach
impossible to enjoy. What are the impacts of one single jet flying this low over a marbled
murrelet nesting area? What are the impacts on a child hiking with his parents in the ONF
of one single jet flying one time at 1250 feet? We do not know because this has not been
studied. I request that US Fish and Wildlife be asked to analyze the effects of the Growler
in flight at altitudes of 1250 feet and below (not a simulated version of the noise) on
wildlife in the ONF and ONP areas. These studies need to be repeated during different
times of the day and night, and at different times of the year to include migration,
breeding, nesting and other seasonal behaviors. I request that studies be reviewed and
conducted on the impact of low altitude flights on human health including cardiovascular
studies and child trauma studies. I request that the impacts of low Growler flights, no
matter how infrequent, on tourism and property values be included in this EIS. 3. Include
standard footnote references within the body of EIS text, and study all peer-reviewed
research available. These EIS documents written by the Navy make claims and decisions
with no way for anyone reading the document to find out what research was used to back
up that claim. Currently, the research used by the Navy are listed en masse at the end of
each section. This is bad science and can easily been seen as a way for the Navy to
make false claims and no one will be the wiser. The reason for requesting that the Navy
study all peer-reviewed research is that the references on some issues do not include
research that shows negative affects so all potential impacts do not get reviewed. 4.
Include an analysis of the economic impacts of Growler noise in the Whidbey /San Juan
Islands area as well as all areas that the Growlers will fly over and pursue training
activities in. This will include tourism, visits to ONP and ONF, property values of private
property, charter fishing, pleasure boating, and loss of income from secondary
businesses (like gas stations) that depend on an influx of visitors to the area. Olympic
National Park is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve.
International treaties are in effect for these areas. Explain how the Navy intends to not
violate the International regulations for these areas. 5. Include mitigation and
responsibility for catastrophes caused by the Growlers. These jets have been known to
crash and with more jets in the air piloted by trainees the chances of this happening on
the Olympic Peninsula rise. Please address the Navys plan and responsibility for
managing the consequences of a possible catastrophe including forest fire, civilian
injury/death, destruction of homes and buildings, etc. The escalation of Navy activities
and locations, and the constant encroachment on civilian life without regard to values
other than military agendas has significantly impacted life on the Olympic Peninsula.
When is enough, enough for the Navy? The Navys mission is to defend and protect the
citizens and territory of the USA, not put us out of business, ruin our health, degrade the
environment, indiscriminately destroy non-human inhabitants, and pepper our lives with
unhealthy noise and vibrations. To co-use is to share space with respect and
consideration for the lives and values of the people and territory you are sworn to protect.
If the goal is to defend democracy, then lets not do it by putting its citizens under the
thumb of an organization that then acts like a tyrant. What is the point of a democracy
then? Please, bring back the Navy that we can respect, support and be proud of. Thank
you, (b)(6)
, Carlsborg, WA
2962
(b)(6)
2963
My family and I have lived and worked in the Central Whidbey area for 45 years. We
bought property in Greenbank during the years when the OLF was surplused and
expected to become a county airport. With Vietnam, we grew accustomed to the drone of
jets touching down, welcomed those from Admirals Cove who had to move out to sleep in
their RVs during the summer, and called the base when they strayed over our area. I
gave birth and recovered from surgery in the hospital in Coupeville with planes roaring by
as they made their circle. My husband taught school with frequent interruptions and I
worked in a historic building that would shake with each pass. I drove under the OLF
flight path, wondering each time when a pilot in training might make a mistake or a
gawking tourist would stray across the center line. In 2006, we moved into historic and
beautiful Coupeville, having (unfortunately) grown accustomed to the intrusion of the
Navy jets, but delighted at the prospect that they might be replaced by P3 squadrons.
Then the Growlers arrived. What a difference! With significant increase in noise level and
in width of circles over the town, hospital, nursing home, schools, farms, and parks, the
intrusion into our lives has become significant. Areas that I would ask you to include in
scoping: 1. Noise: what are the noise levels at ground level where people and animals
(both marine and land) actually live and work? What kind of options are there for reducing
noise, e.g., could the planes being used for training be built or retrofitted for noise
reduction even if the ones used in combat need to have a high shock and awe factor? 2.
Ecological impacts of the planes and their support: Is a fragile ecosystem such as that of
Whidbey Island and Puget Sound the appropriate area to concentrate resources? What is
the tipping point? How does increasing the number of planes and personnel affect the
area in regards to pollution, air quality, demand on limited groundwater from a
sole-source aquifer, rising sea levels, etc? What are the impacts of increased use of OLF
on the rare prairie remnants nearby? 3. Social impacts: How much additional population
can the North and Central Whidbey areas safely absorb with an aging bridge, poor roads,
and limits on ferries? What are the impacts on schools, social services, local government,
and law enforcement from the transient and needy Navy personnel? What additional
population will be attracted to serve them? Will Oak Harbor be taken over completely by
big box stores and chain restaurants? Is North Whidbey destined to become a high
crime, drug, and poverty area such as that surrounding Joint Base Lewis-McChord? Will
unique aspects of the area, e.g., multiple state parks, fragile shorelines and farms force
the increased population into the noise zones or onto adjacent islands or mainland
requiring long commutes on dangerous roads? What is the impact on the tourism and
farming economy that is so important to Central Whidbey, and is in fact a goal of another
branch of the Federal Government with the National Historic Reserve? 5. Safety: How
does the increase in number of jets increase the likelihood of a crash into a populated
area? 6. National defense: What is the strategic impact of putting all of the Navys
electronic warfare resources in one area? Does it make us all sitting ducks?
(b)(6)
2964

I am a senior citizen and have lived on the south end of Lopez Island since 1990 when
we built our home. In the last year noise and over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field
has exceeded anything we have experienced. All the reasons we have chosen to live
clearly false. In our 70's my husband and I are too old to start over again and our
property values are depreciating because of this on-going sound of war over our heads
day in and day out. Our very well-built home shakes when the growlers are happening,
anything hanging on the walls shift and the double windows and doors are losing their
linings ~ this has happened in just the last year. I have developed tinnitus so bad that I
am constantly aware of a whizzing and roaring sound day and night. - The Navy should
conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of San Juan County
over a one-month period. - The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency noise The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition to daily averages - The EIS should
consider health effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of Control, Sleep Disturbance and
Impacts on Children - The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases
(b)(6)
2965

I have lived on Lopez Island for 15 years. I moved here for the beautiful recreational
areas and the peace and quiet. I live on the north end of Lopez Island and am disturbed
by jet noise on most days. If the jets are not flying directly over my house I can hear a
rumbling noise that vibrates my body and goes on for hours and hours. I previously close
to SeaTac airport in Seattle, and never experienced the level of disturbing jet noise that I
am now living with. I would like to see the following in the EIS process. 1) Conduct
continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a bone-month
period 2) Include C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. 3) The EIS
throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County. 4)The EIS should address the
health effects of "Startle Reactions." Conduct medical surveys on the impacted
activity. 5) The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the
Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault Field between 2000 and
0800hours should be developed and studied. 6)At a minimum, the following mitigation
flight paths from NAS Whidby Island (map on page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be
modified to minimize routes over populated areas including the south end of Lopez Island
to the greatest extent possible. b)Growler training flights over populated areas including
San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation. c)Afterburners should not be
used on Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. d) A Ground Run-up Enclosure
or Hush House should be used for noise suppression during all Growler training engine
General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. f)Notify citizens in advance of all
(FCLP),and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA's). 7) This EIS should conduct all
analysis for the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and Records
of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2966

I operate a small farm on the southend of Lopez Island. I have two employees who help
with the farm and several contractors who help out as needed. I try to be very
conscientious and provide a safe work environment. I am concerned, however, given the
very significant increase in the noise coming from Navy Whidbey operations over the past
year or so that this noise may cause a workplace liability issue for me as my employees
are subject to the loud and often constant noise. When we use equipment such as the
tractor, chain saw, post hole digger etc, we use ear protection as required by the WA
State Dept of Labor and Industries and per OSHA standards. But we are being subjected
to much louder and frequent noise from Navy Whidbey than often we experience with our
machinery. It is not feasible to wear ear protection at all times. And it is not possible to
put it on and off as needed for the noise from Whidbey as the timing of the noise is
difficult to predict and at times almost constant. I am concerned and would appreciate the
EIS to consider if I can be responsible as an employer for this Navy generated
environmental noise, for the possible damage to my employees and be held responsible
for their hearing loss or other health problems associated with being subjected to the loud
noise blasts and the low frequency noise blasts. The barn where we work shakes and
rumbles especially during the engine testing times. This is a newer barn, built in early
2000's and of solid construction. But the low level frequency and the intensity of the noise
blasts cause the structure to rumble and shake. The EIS should consider the potential
liability I, as an employer, may be subjected to by claims from my employees due to
hearing loss and other health issues from being subjected to the Navy's noise over which
I have no control nor ability to easily mitigate. In addition the EIS should consider the
difficulty that I as an employer may encounter in trying to find workers who are willing to
work at a location that is subjected to such frequent and loud noise from the Navy
Whidbey operations. The EIS should consider the impact of the noise not only on the
humans but also on the animals on the farm - whether the noise level reduces sheep
breeding/lambing or disrupts chickens from laying eggs as I sell eggs and lamb. And if
the noise has an impact then the noise has an economic impact in addition to the
possible health issues. The EIS should also consider if the frequent low frequency noise
levels in any way damages any of our buildings or structures. Does this noise in any way
reduce the structural integrity so that our buildings would not be as structurally sound
perhaps in an earthquake because of the frequent, intense blasts of noise that they have
been subjected to and even more so should other growlers be allowed at Navy Whidbey.
(b)(6)
2967

I have lived on Lopez island for 20 years. In the past year noise and over-flights from the
Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything we have experienced in the last 35 years.
My community, my friends, colleagues and self are experiencing increasingly negative
impacts from this increased activity over our island. The Navy considers San Juan
County (SJC) a "no significant impact area". This is clearly false. Please include the
following studies in the EIS: 1. Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern
portion of SJC over a one-month period. 2. Include C-Weighted sounds measurements
and analysis in the EIS. 3. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise
4. Sound measurements and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or the Navy
afterburners in training flights.
(b)(6)
2968

I have lived on Lopez Island for 20 years. In the last year noise and over-flights from the
Growlers at Ault field have exceeded anything I have experienced in my time here, or
heard about from others who have been here longer. I, my friends, and my community
have all been increasingly negatively impacted by this activity. The Navy considers San
Juan County a "no impact area". This is clearly false. San Juan County has a low
background noise of 35-45 dBA (outside). County residents are routinely exposed to
90-114 dBA (outside) blasts of noise from Growler over flights and operations at Ault
Field resulting in startle reactions. In the EIS please address the health effects of Startle
Reactions. Conduct medical surveys on the impacted populations including San Juan
County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity.
(b)(6)
2969

Growlers at Ault field has increased so dramatically that I, my friends, and my community
are experiencing increasingly negative impacts from this activity. Residents of San Juan
from 65-110 dBA and 75-124 dBC (inside) and is the result of over flights, engine testing
and training operations. Please address, in the EIS, the issue of Loss of Control.
Mitigation should include notifying citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at
either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier
Approaches (CCAs).
(b)(6)
2970

My husband and I relocated from Juneau, Alaska, to Lopez Island in 1995. We
purchased property on the east side of Lopez Island overlooking the serene landscape of
Lopez Sound. We knew that Lopez would provide the degree of tranquility we
experienced in Alaska. Now instead of enjoying tranquility in our retirement years we find
our aural landscape interrupted by the droning rumble and piercing shrieks of jet aircraft
engines. Even as I write this, the noise interrupts my train of thought. Gone are our days
of pleasant work in the garden or beachside strolls. Even indoors all conversation must
cease when the jets pass overhead. Gone also are our dreams of depending on the
value of our property to see us through our final years. With increased level of Growler
activity I doubt that we will find a buyer, ever. I believe that the analyses in the 2005 and
2012 Growler Environmental Assessments were inadequate to support the findings of
Juan County as a no significant impact area. The San Juan Islands and San Juan
County very clearly experience significant impacts from the Growler operation. I request
that the EIS start with new analyses in all areas, including conducting actual sound
measurement testing, and look hard at the effects upon health and property values on
Lopez Island and elsewhere in San Juan County. Thank you.(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2971

My husband and I relocated from Juneau, Alaska, to Lopez Island in 1995. We
purchased property on the east side of Lopez Island overlooking the Lopez Sound. The
Growler noise, interruption, vibration, and startle effects negatively impact not only the
pattern of our daily lives, but our property values and those of our neighbors. Gone are
our dreams of depending on the value of our property to see us through our final years.
With increased level of Growler activity I doubt that we will find a buyer, ever. The
economic impacts of Growler activity extend far beyond our personal household. Visitors
who previously came to the Lopez to experience the tranquility of our beaches and small
farms are starting to spend their visitor dollars elsewhere. Our fragile economies in this
island depend upon these tourism dollars. I ask that the EIS be expanded to address
specific economic impacts throughout San Juan County, including falling property values,
diminished tourism-business income, and a consequential drop in revenues to the
county. Thank you. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2972

Re: "All reasonable alternatives" My husband and I relocated from Juneau, Alaska, to
Lopez Island in 1995. We purchased property on the east side of Lopez Island
overlooking the serene landscape of Lopez Sound. We knew that Lopez would provide
the degree of tranquility we experienced in Alaska. Now instead of enjoying tranquility in
our retirement years we find our aural landscape interrupted by the droning rumble and
piercing shrieks of jet aircraft engines and our property value fallingall thanks to the
persistent presence of Growler activity affecting our island. The Proposed Action
Statement in the EIS puts forward alternatives related to numbers of aircraft to be
purchased and numbers of squadrons as well as the distribution of aircraft operations
between Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. Nowhere does the alternative of basing the
Growlers at a location other than Whidbey Island appear. When I attended a meeting on
Lopez Island in December that included Navy personnel, I heard that the Growlers must
be based at NAS Whidbey because they have always been there. As a tax-paying
citizen of the United States I object to the notion that we cannot change a situation
because thats the way it is. That line of reasoning does not build great countries, great
navies, or great communities. Changes can be made; new infrastructure can be built to
support the Growler operation in a place that provides needed training facilities without
impacting the lifestyle and value of our rural farming islands, whales and other wildlife,
and protected scenic treasures. The EIS is meant to explore all reasonable alternatives.
Please expand the EIS to fully evaluate an alternative that bases Growlers at a location
other than NAS Whidbey Island. Thank you. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2973

I have lived on Lopez Island for 20 years. This past year noise and over-flights from the
Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything I have ever experienced or heard about. I,
my friends, my community, including the young people on this island, have all been
increasingly negatively impacted by this activity. On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely
fly over our school in the middle of the island and over Lopez Village where our
Preschool and Children's Center is located. Please address in the EIS, the issue of
impact of Growler noise on children. Parents, teachers, and children should be
shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez school and Lopez Village.
(b)(6)
2974

SOUND MEASUREMENT: AVERAGES DO NOT TELL THE STORY My husband and I
relocated from Juneau, Alaska, to Lopez Island in 1995. We live on the east side of
Lopez Island overlooking the formerly serene landscape of Lopez Sound. For us, the
most disturbing aspect of the Growler activity is the noise from the jetsboth the
low-pitched rumbling that drones on for hours like a bad headache (as has recently been
the case) and the heart-palpitating roar of twin Growlers arcing overhead. At a meeting
on Lopez in December I asked Navy personnel how they intended to measure the level of
this noiseexperienced regularly by all Lopezians. To my astonishment they said they
did not intend to measure the noise on Lopez because they have a model that can
predict the level of noise. To anyone who has experienced these jets passing overhead,
the idea that a model can in anyway convey the extremity of the experience is ludicrous
and insulting. The Navy can do better than this and as a taxpayer I demand better. I
charge the Navy to conduct actual on-the-ground sound measurements at several
locations on Lopez Island and elsewhere in San Juan County before concluding that the
presence of and augmentation of Growler aircraft on nearby NAS Whidbey has no impact
on our lives. Averages and models do not tell our sorry story. Thank you. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2975

Growlers at Ault field have increased beyond what anyone I know here has experienced
before. It has increasingly caused negative impacts on my community and my loved
ones. San Juan County residents regularly experience Growler jet noise between the
hours of 8 pm and midnight. During the summer the noise often continues to 1 am. Noise
convalescence from illness. In the EIS please address the issue of sleep disturbance.
Conduct a survey of the residents in the study area including San Juan County to
document the extent of this problem. An alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice
from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied.
(b)(6)
2976
I WANT OLF to remain for our brave men and women to have their touch and go
practice.
(b)(6)
2977

I have lived on Lopez Island for 20 years and have never before experienced the intensity
of Navy jet noise that I have this past year. It is hugely and negatively impacting my loved
ones on this island. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations
requires that Agencies shall "(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives." I know that there are other possibilities where Growler training
and basing can happen. The EIS needs to fully evaluate one or more alternatives that
bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
2978

I have lived on Lopez Island for 20 years and have many friends who have been here
much longer than that. We have all experienced huge impacts from the increased noise
and overflights of Growlers from Ault field this past year. We believe that the 2005 and
2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly determined that there was no adverse
noise impact. Therefore it was inappropriate to not evaluate noise mitigation. In this EIS,
at a minimum, the following measures must be fully considered. All selected mitigation
measures should be included in the Record of Decision (ROD) along with timelines for
completion. 1. Growler training flight paths from NAS Whidbey Island (map on page 11 of
the scoping booklet) should be modified to minimize routes over populated areas
including the south end of Lopez Island to the greatest extent possible. 2.Growler training
elevation. 3. Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget
Sound. 4. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used for noise
suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. 5. Test, acquire and
Growlers. 6. Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield
including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP), and Controlled Carrier Approaches
(CCA's).
(b)(6)
2979

We have been a property owners on Lopez island since 1972 and vacationed there every
summer until becoming permanent residents in 1993. Once the Growlers were
introduced, the frequency, volume, and sudden impact of the noise has risen to a level
vastly greater to anything heretofore experienced. Because of the nature of the noise
generated, its most detrimental qualities must be included in any study before the number
of planes is increased. One such quality is the low frequency produced. Since there is
scientific evidence this can cause physical and psychological damage to organisms, this
must be further researched by qualified and impartial experts.
(b)(6)
2980

I have lived in Port Townsend for 8 years and on the North Olympic Peninsula since
1983. For years I have hiked in Olympic National Park and Forest for rest and recreation.
I have been tolerant of Navy jet noise until this last year. My peaceful seaside community,
and my beloved Olympic Park, have been assaulted over the last year by constant noise,
vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy reported in past EAs that there
would be less noise associated with the transition from Prowlers to Growlers, even with
the addition of more aircraft. This is clearly false. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler
sound measurements in the Port Townsend area and Olympic National Park (including
the Pacific coastal area of the Park) over a one-month period. B. Include C-Weighted
sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. C. The EIS analysis should incorporate
(b)(6)
2981

I have lived on Lopez Island for 20 years and never before felt such an extreme impact
across my community, because of the Growler noise and over-flights as I have this past
year. The EIS needs to address the economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom,
Jefferson, and Island counties.
(b)(6)
2982

I have lived on the south end of San Juan Island since 1985. In the last year noise and
(b)(6)
2983

Frost Island has been our home since 1993----over 20 years. In the last year the
over-flights from the Growlers have increased to an insane level---as in it drives us
absolutely CRAZY. Evidently, the Navy considers San Juan County a non-significant
noise impact area. Wow! That is so at odds with the obvious truth that, once again, it
drives us absolutely CRAZY. We request that the Navy be directed to formally conduct
sound measurements at, a minimum of, 5 separate locations on Lopez Island, including
peak noise levels per day. If the noise data is obtained, the Navy's statement that the
San Juan Islands are a "non-significant noise impact area" becomes foolish. Once the
truth about the noise is "officially" documented, noise mitigation measures are essential.
If billions of dollars are being spent by the Navy on existing and proposed Growler
operations, tens of millions of dollars mitigating the Growler noise impact seems
reasonable and relatively insignificant These mitigation measures, at a minimum, should
include hush houses, flying above 3,000 feet over populated areas and noise
suppression fixes for the Growler engines. Hoping that this EIS process is not just a
bureaucratic check-mark process, sincerely, your funders and fellow citizens, (b)(6)
Frost Island San Juan Islands
(b)(6)
2984

of planes is increased. One such quality is the low frequency produced. I have been told
that low frequency sound has not been included in any analysis to date (A weighting
instead of C weighting). Since the low frequency impact is a major component to the
impact of the Growler sound on people and property, it must be measured.
(b)(6)
2985

I have lived on Lopez Island for 20 years and the activity and noise of the Growlers over
Lopez Island this past year has increasingly impacted my community. Both the 2005 and
even considered. San Juan County was considered a "no significant impact area" and
that is clearly not the case. This EIS needs to conduct all analysis from the beginning and
(b)(6)
2986

of planes is increased. Since a major issue is the actual impact of the noise on the
residents of the San Juan Islands, actual measurements must be conducted on site over
an extended period of time. (Using models can only produce approximations since all
unique factors of geography and weather cannot be accurately included. And
approximations can easily underestimate the true impact.)
(b)(6)
2987

of planes is increased. The issue is not with any sort of average amount of noise; the
problem is both the impact of each event and the frequency of these events. Therefore, it
is the maximum levels recorded and their frequency that must be analyzed.
(b)(6)
2988
Langley, WA 98239
We are so upset with the Navy's audacious disregard for the citizens of Ebey's Reserve.
The area has changed; the OLF no longer belongs in such a heavily populated area. We
know that a tragic accident is imminent beyond the frequent stress caused by the
incredible noise of these Growlers. I am sorely and sadly disappointed in my government
for opting to ignore the pleas of the people it serves. It's just a sad display of ignorance,
disregard for people and nature and is unnecessary considering all the options open to
the wealthy Navy.
(b)(6)
2989

I am a resident of Port Townsend. Over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations from
Growlers are seriously and negatively affecting my quality of life and that of many others
in this community. Ive just returned from a walk in the forest and along the shoreline in
Fort Worden State Park. I do this daily for exercise, stress reduction, and peace. Today I
came home early to escape the loud, thundering noise and the sight of jets flying
side-by-side round, and round, and round between here and Whidbey Island. I live only
five blocks from Worden so I shouldnt be surprised that its still loud inside my house.
This has been going on for over two hours. And its a regular occurrence. Its like living in
a war zone. Like being under attack by my own navy. This loss of control over the peace
in my community and home is deeply troubling to me. Surveys show that loss of control
over ones life is one of the most disturbing effects of low level military over flights and/or
sonic booms on rural Americans. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M:
(b)(6)
2990

of planes is increased. There are times of day when the Growler noise can be more
disruptive. A study of when activities occur - and the noise generated at those times of
day - needs to be conducted.
(b)(6)
2991

vastly greater to anything heretofore experienced. Some pilots may not follow flight paths
and altitudes that are specified and some may be "legal" but still be highly disruptive.
Therefore, two things are needed: 1) a study of what actually occurs and 2)
recommendations for changes in what is allowed.
(b)(6)
2992

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island since 19xx. In the last year noise and
(b)(6)
2993
All of the following concerns should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for EA-18G Growler airfield operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island,
Washington: HEALTH: Address all health effects of aircraft noise and toxic jet aircraft
pollution, including permanent hearing damage, blood pressure and cardiac problems;
how children have a greater susceptibility; and the harm to livestock and wildlife.
Reference studies by: The World Health Organization; The U.S. Department of
Transportation; and The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. What noise levels are
considered safe for citizens exposed to numerous flights in 24 hours? When Navy planes
fly low over my house, my ears hurt badly, which my doctor (otolaryngologist) has told me
is a sign that the noise is endangering my hearing. JGL Acoustics has reported that
maximum sound levels from Growlers at the OLF are well above the levels requiring
hearing protection and are high enough to potentially result in permanent hearing loss.
Real-time high noise events on the ground should be tested, not model averages that
include non-operational times. My relatives who live close to Ault Field say that they often
smell fuel as planes fly over their homes. The Navy has told them that the planes are
dispersing fuel. How does this dispersed fuel affect the health of local residents and the
safety of our food supply from local sources? SAFETY: Make a safety assessment that
shows the projected frequency of flights, how low the flights will be, the daily noise impact
when flights are numerous, the danger level of Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and
how the military will ensure a safe flying level is maintained. Consider how pilots and
residents are at risk whenever the Navy uses the short, outdated Coupeville OLF and
flies at low altitudes over residences and businesses. We were told by Navy pilots that
FCLPs are dangerous flights and thats why practice is needed. If FCLP training flights
are so dangerous, they should be made over unpopulated areas instead of populated
Whidbey Island. Ten years ago, when I bought my current home on Whidbey Island, the
Navy rarely used OLF, because it wasnt safe to use. When the Navy used OLF, it would
explain in the newspaper that it had to use it on a temporary basis while a landing field at
Ault Field was being repaired. Now, the Navy has apparently decided that Americans
living on Whidbey Island are an expendable risk, like General Motors decided about the
drivers of their cars years ago. Hopefully, the Navy wont have to testify on the Hill
someday about why it decided to risk the lives of so many people, after some terrible
accident over a school or hospital in Coupeville, which is only four miles from OLF.
ENVIRONMENT: Examine the effects of OLF flight operations on the valuable
recreational, tourist, agricultural and wildlife uses in Ebeys Landing National Historic
Reserve, a National Park of environmental, cultural, and historical significance and an
important wildlife and migratory bird habitat. REAL ESTATE VALUES: Consider how the
louder and more frequent use of the OLF has devastated the local real estate market and
how increased use of the OLF will depress real estate values even more.
(b)(6)
2994

vastly greater to anything heretofore experienced. The list of what can be done to
mitigate the effects of the noise is long. Yet there is little evidence the Navy has
implemented many of them. A good faith effort must be made to become a far better
neighbor by thoroughly studying what can be done and then taking quick and far reaching
action to implement several of the strategies.
(b)(6)
2995

I have lived for 17 years (13 years part time and 4years full time). Yes there has been
some increase in jet noise in the past year or so but it far from being objectionable. If fact,
I enjoy the sound of the Navy A/C and it is a small price to pay for the great good done by
the US Navy.(b)(6)
(b)(6)
2996
Dedham, MA 02026
I agree that "these separate evaluations fail to take into account the cumulative impacts
of each of the four related proposals. We have no idea about the real cultural,
environmental and even the financial impacts of these proposals. Seen in
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/.../port-townsend-city...
(b)(6)
2997
Sequim, WA 98382
I would like to state my endorsement of the Growler Operations Scoping Comments
addressed to you and written by Ronald Richards, Protect the Peninsula's Future. The
questions raised require that the Navy obey NEPA law in doing environmental review. No
one, not even the Navy, is above the law.
(b)(6)
2998

I have lived on the Olympic Peninsula for almost 32 years, and for decades have visited
Olympic National Park for recreation and quiet. Its a place of incredible beauty and
serene soundscapesuntil you hear the thunder of Growler aircraft. The National Park
Service has conducted surveys of park visitors and found that 82% of visitors are there
for the natural soundscapes. Under federal law, Olympic National Park is mandated to
protect its wilderness. This includes soundscapes. I have experienced the sonic booms
when the Growlers are flying near Olympic National Park, and I know other park visitors
have as well. This sudden loud noise is terrifying, especially when it punctuates the quiet
of the rainforest. It feels and sounds as if a bomb has gone off. The noise produced by
the thunder of the aircraft and the sonic booms have consequences for human health.
Medical surveys should be conducted on the impacted populations including those of the
North and West Olympic Peninsula. Park visitors should be surveyed to understand how
Growler noise affects them. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity.
Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
2999

I am a teacher with the Lopez Island School district and I have lived on Lopez Island
since 1993. As a musician and elementary music teacher, I am very much impacted by
background noise. The noise created by the growlers is more than background noise.
San Juan County is by no means a "no significant impact area. It is my strong opinion
that the navy should: - The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the
(b)(6)
3000

I have lived on the North Olympic Peninsula for nearly 32 years, and in Port Townsend
for the last 8 years of that time. This is such a quiet peaceful place. We are blessed with
beautiful natural landscapes and soundscapes. Although NAS Whidbey has been
operating for years, the jet noise and activity have not bothered me much until this last
year. Ive always slept with my window cracked for fresh air and to hear the wind in the
trees, but some nights that is no longer possible because the noise keeps me awake. We
are losing the peace that we have long known here. I do not understand why this EIS
does not include an Alternative that would base Growlers somewhere other than NAS
Whidbey. .Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires
alternatives. The introduction of the Growler is negatively impacting Port Townsend and
the whole region. Alternatives should not be dismissed just because they are higher in
cost or not as efficient. Adding any Growlers to an already significantly affected area is
location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3001

As a life-long resident of western Washington and long-time Olympic Peninsula resident I
am appalled at the Navy has launched an assault of noise on their neighbors, the
residents of the region. The Navy should be implementing immediate noise mitigations to
reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on citizens throughout the region
including Jefferson and Clallam Counties. In preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) the Council on Environmental Quality regulation 1502, section 14 on
mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. I believe
that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly determined that there
was no adverse noise impact from the introduction of the Growlers. Therefore it was
flight paths from NAS Whidbey Island (map on page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be
modified to minimize routes over populated areas, including the North and West Olympic
Peninsula and Quimper Peninsula, to the greatest extent possible. b)Growler training
flights over populated areas including Jefferson and Clallam Counties should be above
3,000 feet elevation. c)Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over
North Puget Sound, or anywhere near the Olympic and Quimper Peninsulas. d)A Ground
Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used for noise suppression during all
Growler training engine run-ups and testing. e)Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction
measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. f)Notify citizens in
Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3002
I have lived on Whidbey island for 10 years, 8 of them in the official noise zone created
by NAS Whidbey OLF. Like anybody, other things being equal, I prefer quiet to noisy.
When I bought this property almost 11 years ago now, I made the tradeoff and concluded
I was willing to tolerate some noise in order to live where I now do. I considered other
neighborhood closer to the OLf but decided they would be too noisy. Those who claim
they didn't know about OLF and its noise have nobody to blame but themselves. It was
and is no secret. At the same time, I believe the Navy owes it to the rest of Whidbey
Island to be a good neighbor. Publishing flying schedules is a good first step; adhering to
a firm cutoff time for night flights would be another. In general, a stronger effort should be
made minimize noise impacts as much as possible consistent with training needs. Those
who oppose the use of OLF are a very noisy bunch. Of course, people of all political
stripes prefer quiet but I have observed that many, maybe *all* of the noisiest protestors
lean strongly left and tend to dislike all things military in general. They are willing to say
anything: "the Realtor lied", "it hurts the children", etc. rather than say what they mean: "I
don't like the noise and I don't care about the consequences to either Navy preparedness
or to Whidbey Island if OLF is not used. I strongly believe a poll that took in all of
Whidbey Island would show that a strong majority are aware of both the importance of
proper training to the Navy and of the Navy to the economy of Whidbey Island. I hope the
Navy will not listen too much to the noisy minority fringe. The Navy is welcome on
Whidbey Island and can ensure it will stay that way by striving to be a good neighbor.
(b)(6)
3003

I have lived on the south end of San Juan Island since 2012. In the last year noise and
over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has increased. All the reasons we have chosen
to live here are being degraded by the noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of
Growlers, and I understand south Lopez Island is much harder impacted. The Navy
considers San Juan County a no significant impact area. This is clearly false. - The
Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of San
Juan County over a one-month period. - The EIS should consider the impacts of low
frequency noise - The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition to daily averages The EIS should consider health effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of Control, Sleep
Disturbance and Impacts on Children - The EIS should fully evaluate one or more
alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. - The EIS
should evaluate noise mitigation measures such as minimize flight routes over or near
populated areas and to fly above 3,000 feet; deploy a Hush House or Ground Run-up
Enclosure; deploy noise suppression measures for the Growler engines; notify citizens in
advance of Growler training operations at Ault Field.
(b)(6)
3004

no significant impact area. This is clearly false. I have lived on the West Side of Lopez
Island for 7 1/2 years. Navy aircraft have caused sonic booms occasionally in all this
time, but the recent noise from The Griwler plane has been annoyingdisrupting and when
visiting the South part of the island, scared! The wild bird population at our house is
significantly down. Instead of increasing the number of Growlers, noise from the current
numbers should be shetesting of the noise and psychological damage must be done The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of
San Juan County over a one-month period. - The EIS should consider the impacts of low
advance of Growler training operations at Ault Field. - This EIS should conduct all
analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the deficient analysis
(b)(6)
3005

no significant impact area. This is clearly false. I have lived on the West Side of Lopez
Island for 7 1/2 years. Navy aircraft have caused sonic booms occasionally in all this
time, but the recent noise from The Griwler plane has been annoyingdisrupting and when
visiting the South part of the island, scared! The wild bird population at our house is
significantly down. Instead of increasing the number of Growlers, noise from the current
numbers should be shetesting of the noise and psychological damage must be done The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of
(b)(6)
3006

over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded all flyovers I have experienced
in those 31 years. All the reasons we have chosen to live here are being degraded by the
constant noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. Local scientists are
surmising that it is also affecting wildlife, such a bird habitats. The Navy considers San
Juan County a no significant impact area. This is clearly false. - The Navy should
(b)(6)
3007

I have invested a significant sum of money in the purchase of my home in Port
Townsend. This small city is known far a wide as a quaint and quiet seaport and arts
community. Property values are high here, partly because of its natural beauty and quiet.
The Growlers are changing the quality of life in Port Townsend. I fear that the increased
noise of the aircraft will decrease visitors to our area, which will negatively affect local
small businesses that rely on tourist income, and reduce our property values. Im also
concerned about the impacts to other communities on the Olympic Peninsula that rely on
tourism for a large part of their economy. Olympic National Park draws millions of visitors
to this area, and these visitors spend lots of money. Park surveys show that 82% of
visitors to Olympic come for the natural soundscapes. Jet noise over the interior and
coastal portions of the park has become loud and frequent over the last year, especially. I
would like to know how the current activity level, and projected increases, in Growler
flights over the Olympic Peninsula will effect the economy of the area. The EIS should
address potential losses of tourism on the Olympic Peninsula, and economic impacts
throughout Jefferson and Clallam Counties. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3008

I am a resident of Port Townsend, and I have been following the EIS process for the past
year. It is clear to me that both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were
deficient and incomplete. The Growlers were moved to NAS Whidbey Island without a full
EIS and without sufficient study of noise impacts, health consequences, plans for
mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and economic impacts to the region. The low
frequency noise that is the signature noise of the Growler was not even considered.
Given the noise disturbance I have personally experienced over the last year I consider
this oversight unacceptable. This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and
Environmental Assessments. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3009

As I write this, my house is physically vibrating because of growler noise. I ask that the
environmental impact analysis include the measurement of vibrations and their impact on
human health and wildlife.
(b)(6)
3010

I believe the EIS must include an analysis of the cumulative effects (esp noise) of the
expanding fleet of Growlers. The noise of these aircraft destroy the peace and beauty of
our otherwise pristine environment.
(b)(6)
3011
Victoria, V8Y 2L6

I live along Cordova Bay in Victoria BC. Increasingly, we are being disturbed by the
sounds of the Growlers taking off. It's unnerving, like the beginnings of an earthquake,
and is definitely affecting our peace of mind. Of course, I understand the necessity of
preparedness practice, but is it not possible to do so without disturbing our peace? Is it
not possible to ascertain when the sounds will be more or less disturbing to the public? Is
it not possible to limit practice to certain times of the day?
(b)(6)
3012

The EIS for expanding the fleet of Growlers at NAS Whidbey Island must include an
analysis of the impact of increased noise and environmental pollution.
(b)(6)
3013

I have lived in Port Townsend for 41 years and I am impacted by military jet noise from
Whidbey Island. It has become far more frequent and louder than in past years. The EIS,
which is to evaluate the impact of additional squadrons and aircraft and more frequent
operations, needs to address several factors. In this letter I want to mention just the noise
level and only as it affects humans. As you have transitioned from Prowlers (already
noise enough!) to Growlers, the noise level and frequency of flights have increased a
great deal.You are now proposing even more of these planes and even more frequent
flights. (Up to 260 days a year and 16 hours a day?!!!!!!!!!) It is less than tolerable already.
The EIS needs to include UNBIASED, 3rd party studies of what this bombardment with
very loud noise does to human physical and mental health, especially to children and the
elderly. To begin with, data on noise levels cannot be based on noise measurements
from an engine on a runway platform that is averaged out over a year of quiet and not
quiet days. This has absolutely nothing to do with the noise of a Growler jet flying
overhead. If you use such a test at Coupeville OLF, I will not hear it, but I most certainly
hear the jets flying both north and east of Port Townsend. If you do not include ACTUAL
decibel readings in homes and on playgrounds and include the Growler low frequency
spectrum, then you are not doing a meaningful assessment at all. Doing it properly and
fairly (as above), the EIS then needs unbiased data on HOW SUCH NOISE LEVELS
AFFECT: sleep , anxiety levels, compromised immune systems, success in school,
mental health, cardiovascular disease and other heart conditions, hearing, Vets with
PTSD, stress hormones, and behavior (psycho-social impacts). For myself, the increased
volume and frequency has triggered increased heart rate, often followed by atrial
fibrillation, which can last for hours, weakens my heart, and increases my risk of stroke.
In a ferry line at Coupeville, my grand-daughters could not play on the beach as planned
because the noise was horrendous, and even in the car we could not carry on a
conversation. Family reunions on Whidbey (where our great-great grandparents lived)
have now been cancelled. Many years ago, camping at Deception Pass with our two
small children, we were subjected to sudden late night fly-overs by the Prowler jets. The
children screamed in terror and we could not leave as the last ferry home was long past.
It was a horror we'll never forget. Finally, I'd like to see where an EIS was done on
bringing ANY Growlers and adding ANY additional flights on Whidbey, since the year
2000 or so, in the first place. I see no record of such an EIS. Where and when was the
public notified? Where and when were we asked for input? How did the current Growlers
get introduced in the first place? I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS
PLEASE. I believe the Navy has acted illegally.
(b)(6)
3014
Nordland , WA 98358
I'm listening to Growler noise from Whidbey Island NAS as I type this. The EIS must
include an analysis of the cumulative effects (esp noise) of the expanding fleet of
Growlers. What are both the short and long-term effects of noise exposure to human
health? What are the dB thresholds that cause stress? What are the effects of the noise
based on the amount of time of a single-episode exposure. I don't have a TV nor do I
have the radio going very often and the noise has disturbed my falling asleep before. I
think the effects of cumulative exposure need to be researched and addressed. Thank
you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3015

I have experienced many times the growlers fly so low that the noise level becomes
unbearable. It is so loud that I have to yell at the top my lungs to be understood by
another person standing next to me. I'd like the environmental impact analysis to
document for the public how flight altitude corresponds to decibel level on the ground,
and document the human health and wildlife impact of low level fly-overs, particularly
when decibel levels experienced on the ground exceed 60 decibel, and including decibel
levels of up to 150.
(b)(6)
3016
Sequim, WA 98382
Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island I live, recreate, hike, fish, and
travel in areas of Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest, and Clallam, Jefferson,
Grays Harbor, Island, and San Juan Counties that will be adversely affected by any
increase in the number of EA-18G Growler Aircraft at NASWI. These members are
already being adversely affected by the current number of EA-18Gs at NASWI, the
impacts of which have not been sufficiently evaluated in any environmental document. I
have grave concerns that the scope of the EIS as described in the Fall 2014 A Guide to
the Scoping Meeting (for the subject EIS) is much too limited to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That act requires all federal agencies to prepare an
EIS whenever they undertake any significant action, and further stipulates that all
activities that are functionally related must be included. The geographic area proposed to
be covered by the EIS is limited to the Whidbey Island area generally, and to landings,
takeoffs, and touch and go training at Ault and OLF fields. In this regard, a diagram on
the left side of the Growler Operations page of the Scoping Meeting Guide is most
telling. That diagram includes three flight paths that extend to the southwest of the area
shown as follows: Those flight paths lead to the Navys proposed Pacific Northwest
Electronic Warfare Range (EWR). The impacts of the planes on those flight paths do not
end at the boundaries of the Navys diagram. The impacts extend as far as the Growlers
fly. Under NEPA those impacts must be evaluated in the EIS both in the area between
Whidbey Island and the proposed EWR, and in the area of the proposed EWR. Because
that was not done in the Navys Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed EWR,
it should be done now. This is also necessary under the 1988 Master Agreement
between the Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture. That Master
Agreement requires the Forest Service to study both the impacts of the proposed
land-based training activities and the impacts of the proposed use of airspace if directly
associated with the land based training. I am mindful that the Navys EA for the EWR
states at Page 2-8: All of the EW training activities and locations that would be
demonstrates it was not evaluated in the NWTT either. I expect the Navy, in the proposed
EIS, to evaluate the impacts of the Growlers, both in the area between Whidbey Island
and the proposed EWR, and in the area of the proposed EWR, with the same intensity
and specificity it evaluates the impacts of the Growlers in the Whidbey Island area. In this
regard, a diagram on the right side of the Growler Operations page of the Scoping
Meeting Guide is helpful. It shows a detailed portrayal of the flight paths of planes using
the OLF for Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP). A copy is shown below. It is
commendable that the Navy has gone to such extents to study the impacts of the 36 new
Growlers at OLF. However, the same detailed portrayal of flight paths of planes going to
and returning from, and using the proposed EWR, is essential for a proper evaluation of
the impacts in those locations. Because there are 15mobile emitter sites in the proposed
EWR, and one fixed emitter site, there are essentially 16 OLFs in the proposed EWR. A
detailed portrayal of flight paths for each of the 16 proposed emitter sites is needed. The
same is true of every possible flight path to and from the proposed EWR. With neither the
Growlers, must now be evaluated in the proposed EIS. Prior to preparing an EIS as
suggested above, the Navy should consider that the Master Agreement referred to above
authorized military use of National Forest lands only if that use is compatible with
other uses and in conformity with applicable forest plans, provided the Department of
Defense determines and substantiates that lands under its administration are unsuitable
or unavailable. NASWI is already conducting electronic warfare training at several
Department of Defense bases in the Northwest that include restricted airspace and nearly
half a million acres of land. Only one, the Fallon Training Range Complex, is mentioned,
in a single paragraph on page 2-9 of the EA for the proposed EWR. This does not qualify
as the kind of determination and substantiation required by the Master Agreement. Also,
Capt. Michael Nortier, the commanding officer at NASWI, stated in a Commentary in the
Peninsula Daily News on December 26, 2014, that The armed services have decades of
experience successfully operating similar fixed and mobile emitters at a variety of
locations across the nation. This being the case, the Navy cannot meet the condition
3016
under the Master Agreement that lands already under [the DODs] administration are
unsuitable or unavailable for an electronic warfare range. Consequently, no mobile
emitter sites in Olympic National Forest can be used for the proposed EWR. In the
proposed EIS, the Navy must also consider the impacts related to both parts of Electronic
Combat Electronic Surveillance and Electronic Attack. In the informational meetings
held in Forks and Port Angeles to explain the proposed EWR, the Navy repeatedly
stressed that training for Electronic Attack would not take place in the proposed EWR.
Capt. Michael Nortier said the same in the Commentary mentioned above. The official
documents say otherwise. Specifically: Section 2.1.2 of the EA for the proposed EWR,
says The activities of the Proposed Action center on two divisions of EW, known as
requirements on local ranges; Section 4.2.1.3 of the EA for the proposed EWR says
trained, properly manned, interoperable, wellmaintained, and supported; and The
Proposed Action section of the Fall 2014 A Guide to the Scoping Meeting (for the subject
EIS) says The Navy is proposing to increase electronic attack (VAQ) capabilities by
adding up to 36 aircraft to support an expanded VAQ mission and training at NAS
Whidbey Island; and The VAQ Mission and Training section of the above mentioned
Guide says The missions of the VAQ squadrons include electronic surveillance and
attack against enemy radar and communications systems. This involves the use of
jamming equipment and anti-radiation missiles. The Growler has an advanced electronic
system that allows it to identify targets and protect itself from those targets. The Navy
cannot maximize the use of the proposed EWR, nor can it produce fully trained
combat-ready Tactical Electronic Attack squadrons on the proposed EWR without
electronic attack training being conducted there. Nor can the Navy meet the Proposed
Action and VAQ Mission and Training goals for the proposed action without electronic
attack training being conducted on the proposed EWR. The Navy must study the impacts
of this electronic attack training in the proposed EIS. It should also stop denying its true
intentions regarding electronic attack training in its public statements. In the Navys
informational meetings at Forks and Port Angeles on the proposed EWR, as well as in
the EA for the proposed EWR, it is suggested that EMF from the proposed emitters would
not be dangerous, in part because it was directed upwards and away from any living
thing that could be adversely affected by the EMF. The implication from this is that EMF
directed downwards, as it will be from Growlers training in the proposed EWR, would be
dangerous. Perhaps that is why the Navy chose not to address this element of the
proposed EWR in its environmental documents. NEPA, however, does not allow for that
exception. I am encouraged by the statement in the above mentioned Guide that: A
noise assessment will be conducted as part of the EIS and it will include a supplemental
noise analysis, a potential hearing-loss analysis, and an assessment of non-auditory
health effects. The supplemental noise analysis will include an evaluation of sleep
disturbance, indoor speech interference, and classroom learning interference. The
be exposed to noise levels greater than 80 DNL. Lastly, the assessment of non-auditory
must be done with real noise level data obtained from actual on ground measurements
3016
of year. This latter consideration is particularly important in relation to nesting seasons for
endangered birds and tourist seasons for Olympic National Park and surrounding areas.
It is not sufficient to assume that training will take place at a constant number and
duration of flights throughout the year, unless in fact it does. These studies should
include C-Weighted sound measurements and analysis, they must incorporate
public to comment. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Sequim, WA
98382
3016
(b)(6)
3017

We have a farm in the flight pattern of the OLF. As part of farm income, we rent the
farmhouse as a vacation rental and have up to 10 weddings a year there and brings
associated business to the county. We've been residents here for 33 years and owned
the farm for 10 years. We have noticed a dramatic increase in the impact of the noise
with the new jets. It is nearly impossible to work outside when they are circling the farm.
In addition, overnight tourism is higher in the summer on Whidbey, and that is when the
jets begin flying at 10 pm. This will become a big issue for tourism if the proposed
increase in planes and flights happens. At what point will the tourism industry need a
byline that states, 'and you may experience frequent and unpredictable terrifying sound
and vibration as you enjoy our island'? And, of course, the impact on citizens living under
the jets will be severe with the increase of flights and the new jets. We need to have a
reasonable discussion with honest and truly appropriate data, not hand-picked data. I
notice that frequencies are not being measured to compare the new jets with the old.
Frequency greatly affects how sound is experienced. To leave it out of the assessement
is negligent and dishonest. Also, having an average decibel rate per day rather than
maximum decibels is dishonest and misleading. Maximum decibels and frequencies are
what matter. Would we not be concerned about public health/safety if a speeding driver
of a car averaged 40 mph, though she peaked at 100 mph several times/day? The impact
of peak decibels is real and cannot/should not be averaged away. It is dishonest if we are
talking about impact on those who live in this area. To summarize, I want to trust that this
EIS is objective, honest, and truly evaluating the impact of the new jets as opposed to the
old and increasing the number of flights. We can only trust this if the truly pertinent
information is collected. At this time it appears that you have left frequency and peak
decibels out. It only leaves us to wonder if this is intentional in order to dilute the results. I
ask that this be considered, addressed and reported. We all need to be honest and
reasonable, not manipulative, if we want to coexist amicably on this wonderful island.
Please do your part. Thanks for listening and I look forward to seeing the final report with
honest, truly revealing data. To do anything less makes a mockery of the whole process
and your view of the public. Thank you.
(b)(6)
3018
Eastsound, WA 98245
Surely there is a way to reduce noise that grinds on and on from these planes. There
appears to be no limits to when these planes fly, not enough public notifications, and this
feels like only the beginning of these noise impacts. These planes should be tested over
less-populated regions than Puget Sound/Salish Sea.
(b)(6)
3019
Dear Project Manager, I appreciate the opportunity to submit the following comments and
ask they be included in the scoping of the Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The Central
Whidbey community falls within my district in Island County, and as their representative,
my comments will focus on that geographic area. Island County is a mostly rural county
made up entirely of islands. We are a popular tourist destination and are proud to have
an expanding small farm industry. Many come to experience our open spaces, rural
character and beautiful shoreline views. It is often noted that the Naval Air Station
Whidbey Island (NAS-WI) located in the urban area of Oak Harbor is a significant
presence in our county. As federal decisions are made which expand or contract the
activity at NAS-WI it impacts our island communities dramatically. For this reason it is
important to recognize the need to strengthen diversified industries to help stabilize our
local economy and job market. Tourism and agriculture are industries particularly
important in the Central Whidbey area around the Out-lying Field (OLF). The economic
impacts of Growler flights at OLF must be measured and understood at current
conditions before additional flights are authorized at that location. The OLF lies in Ebeys
Landing Historic Reserve, an area with a unique heritage and recognized for its national
significance. The National Park Service, the State of Washington and the local
community have all made substantial investments in the preservation of this cultural
landscape. The EIS must document impacts of the Growler activity to the agricultural,
recreational, and historic resources in the State Parks and Ebeys Landing National
Historic Reserve, an area of environmental, cultural, and historical significance and an
important wildlife and migratory bird habitat. The safety of the pilots during training is
vital, and so is the safety and health of community members living near the OLF. The
potential negative health effects of low level EA-18 Growler aircraft during touch and go
operations (rather than in higher altitude flight) must be established to protect public
health in our community. Real time acoustic measurements more accurately reflect the
safety hazards inherent to the OLF training activity for humans without adequate hearing
protection. Such a review should include potential sleep disruption, hearing damage,
blood pressure and cardiac problems; review any added susceptibility for the medically
fragile, senior citizens and children. Also include any potential harm to natural resources
of water, air, soil and wildlife. The scope of the EIS should not be fragmented, but should
include all EA-18G and EA-6B operations at NAS-WI to determine how they impact the
local communities and environment cumulatively. The Navy is obliged to provide our
island communities a full disclosure of the impacts of increased flight activity, sonar
testing and electro-magnetic training in our region to best inform any decisions
concerning balancing the uses of the two Whidbey fields and surrounding areas. The
transition from Prowlers to Growlers at OLF has already created significant impacts to the
local community. Mitigation is needed. Modifications to the aircraft should be developed
to reduce the increased reverberation and noise created by the Growlers. Restrict
weekly OLF use from Friday-Sunday to allow local residents, farmers and visitors three
days per week to schedule outdoor and indoor activities with certainty. Flight schedules
at OLF should return to the historic patterns used with the Prowlers. The number of
planes in a pattern should be limited to prevent push out over areas outside of the
normal range. Also FCLP patterns should alternate to provide relief to neighborhoods on
contiguous days of training. Develop written training information for continuity during
squadron transition with changes of command. This would minimize the fluctuations in
conditions for the community with each transition to new leadership. Work with local
jurisdictions to advise revisions to land use zoning, building code requirements and
disclosure rules to reflect the new, higher levels of noise and reverberation; provide
resources to retrofit existing structures or purchase of property/compensation for
residents impacted significantly by Growler flight operations. Proper training is crucial for
Navy pilots to appropriately prepare for deployment to aircraft carrier duty. Proper
protection for the local community is equally crucial. I appreciate any efforts by the
NAS-WI leadership to work with local officials to mitigate these conditions. I welcome the
opportunity to assist in implementing the mitigation strategies and land use changes
identified to address the training requirements of the Navy while appropriately protecting
the local community. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3019
(b)(6)
3020

As I write this, low level growler engine noise has been going on non-stop for about 20
minutes. I'd like the EIS to document emotional reactions by full-time island residents to
all decibel levels of growler engine noise that can be heard in the San Juan Islands for
different, specified, uninterrupted periods of time of up to 30 minutes.
(b)(6)
3021

(b)(6)
3022
GEOLOGIC IMPACT: I live in the (b)(6)
as the
Growler flies. We suffered a seismic event, a landslide, on March 27th 2013. I believe the
increased number of flight operations during the rainy months of early 2013 (more than
6000 between 1 January and 1 June) were a contributing factor that caused our
landslide. The EA-18Gs flew directly over the slide area at low altitude (500 AGL)
hundreds of times during the wettest months of year. The roar of their engines not only
assaults the cliffs directly from above but it reflects off the water to pummel the cliffs from
ground level as well. At the EIS open house none of the pilots could tell my husband what
kind of seismic shock is created every time a 50,000 lb. EA-18G slams onto the concrete
flight deck at the OLF 3.5 miles away, but the shockwaves undoubtedly travel for miles in
all directions. The combination of wet wintertime weather, 100+ decibel sound
shockwaves pummeling the cliffs hundreds of times in close succession, and the seismic
shock of the aircraft slamming onto a concrete Carrier flight deck thousands of times a
few miles away were more than our cliffs could bear. An examination of the impact of
aircraft noise and ground vibrations on the various island slide areas including in the
Ledgewood Beach community should be included in the EIS. (Additional information can
be found on the Island County website referencing the March 27, 2013 Ledgewood
Geologic Event, http://www.islandcounty.net/publicworks/DEM/landslide.html). NOISE:
Test real-time high noise events on the ground. Dont use model averages that include
non-operational times. JGL Acoustics reports maximum sound levels from Growlers at
the OLF were well above the levels requiring hearing protection and are high enough to
potentially result in permanent hearing loss. HEALTH: Address all health effects of
aircraft noise and toxic jet aircraft pollution, including permanent hearing damage, blood
pressure and cardiac problems; how children have a greater susceptibility; and the harm
to livestock and wildlife. Reference studies by: The World Health Organization; The U.S.
Department of Transportation; and The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SAFETY:
Consider how pilots and residents are at risk whenever the Navy uses the short, outdated
World War II era Coupeville OLF and flies at low altitudes over residences and
businesses. ENVIRONMENT: Examine the environmental effects of OLF flight operations
on the valuable recreational, tourist, agricultural and wildlife uses in Ebeys Landing
National Historic Reserve, a National Park of environmental, cultural, and historical
significance and an important wildlife and migratory bird habitat. REAL ESTATE
VALUES: Consider how the louder and more frequent use of the OLF have impacted the
local real estate market. Home sales in the OLF area have shown a steep decline from
2008 to 2012, compared to increases in Langley, Freeland and Island County in general.
I personally know people who excluded properties north of South Whidbey State Park
due to the Coupeville OLF from their new home search. ALTERNATIVES TO OLF: The
Navy should close the outdated Coupeville OLF (which wasnt used for 6 contiguous
months in 2013) and permanently relocate all EA-18G and EA-6B flight training to safe,
state-of-the-art facilities in non-populated areas. Consider the economic benefits to the
navy of moving the flight training taking the days Coupeville OLF is unusable due to
adverse weather conditions including fog and wind (many days of planned usage were
cancelled in 2014 due to weather).
(b)(6)
3023

Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or the Navy
(b)(6)
3024
,
My family and I have lived on Lopez Island for 18 years. We have NEVER experienced
any sound remotely as disturbing as the Growler engine run-ups at Whidbey NAS and
the overflights. When we moved to Lopez, the Whidbey NAS Environmental Assessment
stated that the number of jets would be reduced, so we had every, reasonable
expectation that the sound, at the time, would be reduced. Instead the disruptive sound,
as measured at our home, has increased 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 fold, and this is not
only unfair, it is unethical and unpatriotic to create civilian collateral damage of this
magnitude. We ENTIRELY CHALLENGE THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
AVAILABLE FOR THIS EIS, based on the faulty previous Environment Assessments in
2005 and 2012. Neither of those EAs correctly analyzed the effects of bringing the
original Growlers to the Whidbey NAS. The White Houses Council for Environmental
Quality regulation 1502, section 14, on Proposed Alternatives states, In this section
proposed action or alternatives. We thus request that TWO ADDITIONAL
ALTERNATIVES BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS EIS as follows: 1. All Growlers, including
the ones already stationed at Whidbey NAS, should be removed from the base
permanently, or 2. Whidbey NAS should be closed permanently.
(b)(6)
3025
,
I am a long-term resident of the San Juan Islands. I request that the EIS include the study
of the following impacts, THAT MY FAMILY, NEIGHBORS AND COMMUNITY ARE
NOW EXPERIENCING BECAUSE OF WHIDBEY NAS JET NOISE: LOW
FREQUENCY SOUNDS, MEASURED WITH PROPER C WEIGHTING DISTURBED
SLEEP OF HUMANS STARTLE, SCARE AND STRESS REACTIONS OF WILDLIFE
INCLUDING BIRDS, LAND MAMMALS, FISH AND SEA MAMMALS ECONOMIC
COST OF LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY FOR A VARIETY OF REPRESENTATIVE
PROFESSIONS INJURY AND LOSS OF LIFE BECAUSE NOISE DISRUPTS ABILITY
TO HEAR PASSING CARS, SHOUTS OF ALARM AND DANGER LOWER QUALITY
OF LIFE FOR HUMANS HEARING DAMAGE. We are regularly exposed to 70-90dB on
our meter, occurring throughout the day. Exposure at these levels is cumulative and we
are accumulating many hours above these levels. These measures (like we measured on
30 Dec 2013 at 88 dB) are likely 7-8 dB too low because low frequency components. This
is likely the cause of my increasing and debilitating tinnitus.
(b)(6)
3026
,
I am a professor who studies the impacts of people on our environment and I have
studied the impacts of Navy jet sound on people and the environment. I request that the
EIS on the addition of 39 Growler EA-18G's at the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station
recognize the validity and accuracy of the data collected by citizens in San Juan County
through the San Juan County website since 2013. I also request that these data be used
in the EIS scoping process as part of the evidence of strong impacts the sound of Navy
jets is having on nearby communities in the San Juan Islands. There are two main
reasons these data should be taken as valid. 1. First, these data represent only a small
fraction of the impacts on people. Many of our neighbors do not use the site because it
has some technical complexity (so many dots, where do I fit mine on the map?) and also
because they are not people who are afraid to complain about the military, a very
powerful organization in our country 2. Second, there is very little possibility of confusion
of the sound of Navy jets (Growlers and Prowlers) with any other aircraft. The sounds
that these jets make when doing run-ups on the runway and overflights is entirely
different than any other sound we hear in the San Juan Islands, it is unmistakable. You
do not need to see the aircraft to know what it is.
(b)(6)
3027
,
I am a professor who studies the impacts of people on our environment and I have
studied the impacts of Navy jet sound on people and the environment. I request that the
EIS on the addition of 39 Growler EA-18G's at the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station
recognize the validity and accuracy of the data collected by citizens in San Juan County
through the San Juan County website since 2013. I also request that these data be used
in the EIS scoping process as part of the evidence of strong impacts the sound of Navy
jets is having on nearby communities in the San Juan Islands. There are two main
reasons these data should be taken as valid. 1. First, these data represent only a small
fraction of the impacts on people. Many of our neighbors do not use the site because it
has some technical complexity (so many dots, where do I fit mine on the map?) and also
because they are not people who are afraid to complain about the military, a very
powerful organization in our country 2. Second, there is very little possibility of confusion
of the sound of Navy jets (Growlers and Prowlers) with any other aircraft. The sounds
that these jets make when doing run-ups on the runway and overflights is entirely
different than any other sound we hear in the San Juan Islands, it is unmistakable. You
do not need to see the aircraft to know what it is.
(b)(6)
3028

At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully considered. All selected
areas including the south end of Lopez Island to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler
(b)(6)
3029
,
I am a long-term resident of San Juan County and request that the EIS START
ANALYSIS WITH A DIFFERENT BASELINE. The previous 2005 and 2013 EA DID NOT
CORRECTLY ANALYZE THE ORIGINAL EFFECTS OF BRINGING THE FIRST
GROWLERS TO WHIDBEY NAS. I REQUEST THAT THE EIS USE AS A BASELINE
THE PRE-GROWLER NOISE LEVEL. This is the only way to conduct a just, fair and
patriotic analysis.
(b)(6)
3030

Jefferson and Island Counties, including tourism & recreation, agriculture, and property
values.
(b)(6)
3031

Assessments.
(b)(6)
3032

other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
3033
,
My family and I are a long-term residents of San Juan County. I request that the EIS
address the CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE FOLLOWING: The additional of
Growlers, from 0 to the current levels of jets, on the noise environment of a 30 mile radius
of the Whidbey NAS The deployment of Navy sonar The propose coal terminals The
rapid growth on Seattle and other local towns Other pressing developments in the
region. These cumulative impacts should be assessed for the following: All aspects of
human health and behavior affected by loud low and high frequency noise All aspects of
land and sea wildlife health and behavior affected by loud low and high frequency noise
All impacts on endangered and threatened species of animals and plants All pollution
by jet exhaust of soil, water and plants All climate change impacts of consumption of jet
fuel Violation of treaty rights of Native Americans through reduced fishing efficacy
caused by jet noise and deposition of fuel exhaust
(b)(6)
3034
,
**Impacts of additional jets on ecosystems, plants and wildlife in the Salish Sea** My
family and I have lived and worked part time in coastal Washington and the San Juan
Islands for 34 years. I hold a PhD in ecology, specializing in research and education
about the environmental impacts of human activities around the world and how we can all
live secure, healthy and abundant lives. The additional jet noise and jet pollution
associated with addition of 39 additional Growler EA-18G's at the Whidbey Island Naval
Air Station and their impact on local communities and the environment may have
significant, adverse impacts on land-based and marine-based wildlife and plants. Thus, I
request that this EIS include analyses to answer the following questions related to jet
noise and fuel pollution on the environment: 1. What are the effects of increase jet noise
and jet fuel pollution on wildlife and plant morbidity and mortality? 2. What are the effects
of increase jet noise on wildlife behavior and how do these changes in behavior affect
different species ability to forage, breed and remain healthy? 3. What are the effects of jet
fuel pollution on marine and land-based animal wildlife and plants? I regularly smell jet
fuel in the air within 20 miles of the naval base. This means that jet fuel is being inhaled
and ingested by wildlife in this region. 4. What are the effects of all of the above changes
on the economy of the region, particularly the economic livelihoods of people in natural
resource-based industries? My neighbors run a kayaking business and regularly avoid
taking clients on days when there is jet overflights, because clients complain about the
flights. This adversely affects my neighbors income. 5. What are the effects and legal
aspects of jet noise and fuel pollution over the protected areas of the San Juan Islands,
especially the new San Juan National Monument? 6. What will be the cumulative effects
of the increased jet noise and jet fuel pollution, the proposed coal terminal, other marine
noises and pollution, and the stress of climate change on marine-based and land-based
animals and animal community dynamics? 7. The EIS should be expanded to include the
cumulative impacts of all the EA-18G aircraft and P-8s which are scheduled to be based
at NAS Whidbey. This means that the numbers of aircraft will be 10 Attack squadrons (5
aircraft /squadron) and 10 EA-18G Expeditionary aircraft for a total of 60 EA-18Gs and
69 P-8s. This number of aircraft is incompatible with local land use in this region of
expanding tourism, recreation and sensitive environmental areas. How should these be
measured? The impacts of jet noise and jet fuel pollution, for example, should be
monitored as follows: 1. Monitoring should begin immediately; 2. Monitoring should be
conducted by a neutral, third-party organization with no ties of any kind to any of the
entities that involved with the Navy, its contractors or others who benefit from naval
operations on Whidbey Island in the past, present, or contracted for the future; 3.
Monitoring should measure cumulative impacts of all jet related activities within 20 miles
of any flight, plus any land-based operations; 4. Monitoring should measure noise,
pollution and other jet-related activities (like construction, transportation, etc) on the
health of people, plant species, animal species and larger ecosystems; 5. Monitoring
should measure health impacts on people, plant species, animal species and larger
ecosystems over time, e.g. after 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 40 years, etc. 6. Monitoring
should measure effects on vulnerable human, plant and animal populations, e.g., the very
young, the very elderly, those with compromised lung functions or immune systems,
pregnant women, rare and sensitive species and ecosystems, etc. 7. Monitoring should
quantify the impacts. It this cannot be done, we request one of these alternatives: 1. ALL
GROWLERS, INCLUDING THE ONES ALREADY STATIONED AT WHIDBEY NAS,

SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BASE PERMANENTLY, OR 2. WHIDBEY NAS
SHOULD BE CLOSED PERMANENTLY.
3034
(b)(6)
3035

I am a 19 year resident of Lopez living on the water on the east side of the Island about
half way down Lopez Sound. That exposes my wife and me to noise of Growler
operations at various fields used by the NAS on Whidbey Is. as well as to aircraft, often
pairs, returning to base flying a circle pattern that extends over Lopez. I am surprised the
Navy and its contractors continue to assess the impact of noise as though it were only
some pollutant where accumulated levels, like mercury content in salmon, will eventually
do harm. This EIS uses DNL and SEL measurement criteria along with computer
modeling to do just that. Other impacts such as those labeled startle effects are
confined to literature reviews. This approach needs to be changed for this EIS to be valid
and not ignore modern research into human thinking and behavior. A recently popular
book by Daniel Kahnerman, Thinking Fast and Slow, makes an effective case for the
human response to any sudden and unexplained event. In my experience the damage
done by the noise signature of Growlers comes in three parts and your EIS study as
currently designed is missing the first two: 1. The major damage occurs in the first partial
second when the sound waves arrive but the source hasnt been established. Our human
bodies go into possible fight mode with adrenalin and other chemicals flooding the
system as we try to address the question what the hell is that. If we are working with or
driving any machine its even more difficult as more possible explanations are present.
Generally within a second or two our brain has polled all its sensors and has the correct
answerbut not before some real damage is done since we as humans are not designed
to do this regularly. We wear down from repeated shock. 2. After the initial shock and you
realize its a pair or more Growler tailpipes thats causing the roar, you are then still
imprisoned by sensory overload for the next ten seconds or so. Its interesting how we
also shut down when no speech is audible, and no action is appropriate as we monitor for
possible damage. The Navy should not ignore the cumulative impact of these unplanned
forced imprisonments. If effective measurement of such impacts cannot be quantified and
made a part of the EIS then they should at least be recognized as the real issue and their
effects minimized to the extent possible: I strongly recommend that all military aircraft
flying near populated areas institute sound abatement procedures. On the circular
approach pattern over Lopez this means climbing to an altitude of at least 3,000 feet,
over the Straight of Juan de Fuca and then descending in a clean configuration until well
clear of the Island. Since the Growlers have so much drag with their ECM and ordinance
pods perhaps a climb to 4,000 feet would be more realistic. Lastly, the Navy needs to
send out advance warnings and notices of when flight ops will be taking place. All means
should be utilized-mail, website, apps, radio, etc. Even if we all dont get the warning in
time, some will, and the Navy will at least appear as giving a damn. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this proposed EIS. (b)(6)
, Lopez Is.
(b)(6)
3036
Lopez, WA 98012
The jets are too loud. They impact my quality of life and the quality of life of those around
me. I have lived there since 1975. This is the loudest it has EVER BEEN. THIS NOISE
MUST STOP.
(b)(6)
3037

Dear EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager, I raise sheep on Lopez Island 15 air miles
from NAS Whidbey Island Ault Field and write this to the background roar and vibration
that your Growlers are producing with increasing frequency. I find it very difficult to write
this letter. I know that the Navy produced the Growlers to intimidate, subdue, and control
its enemies. I can assure you that this will work. Your test population on Lopez is ready
for the next phase of your operation, an occupying force. Here are some of the results of
your current efforts. The noise, which occurs spasmodically without warning, is so loud as
to stop conversation, both inside and out of the house. Our east facing kitchen windows
vibrate while sitting at the kitchen table as does the chair Im sitting on. With the possible
exception of the period between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., this violent noise can start up at
any time of the day or night. Outside your intrusions are much the same but with different
effects. When the Growler noise commences, the sheep immediately stand up. If they
were eating, they stop. They dont move, eat, or sit down while the noise continues. As
you know, this can sometimes be for three or four hours. In order to grow and remain
healthy, sheep need to eat, rest peacefully, and move around. Without these activities,
sheep gain less weight, produce smaller lambs (when they dont abort them), and are
more susceptible to respiratory and other ailments. So heres my plan. Put your planes
on an aircraft carrier and head out to the middle of the Pacific. Then, you can practice
flying your Growlers to your hearts content. Thanks for reading this. I know it will have no
impact on your decisions but at least I got to tell you about the damage youre doing.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3038
Nordland, WA 98358
EIS must include an analysis of the cumulative effects of noise of the expanding fleet of
Growlers.
(b)(6)
3039
nordland, WA 98358
the EIS must include an analysis of the noise from the growing fleet of Growler jets.
(b)(6)
3040
North Bend, WA 98045

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I am a property owner on both
Whidbey Island in Island County and Orcas Island in San Juan County. I spend time in
both locations because I enjoy the natural attributes of these rural areas beauty,
forests, islands, ocean, wildlife, quiet, and solitude. The increase in the number and
frequency of activity of the Growler aircraft has significant impacts for people living in the
areas affected. I request that you consider the following in the Environmental Impact
Statement: 1) Analysis: conduct continuous sound measurements in ALL geographical
areas impacted over a on-month period; Include C Weighted sound measurements and
analysis; incorporate supplemental noise measurements including Sound Exposure Level
and Peak Sound Level in addition to Day-Night Average; document the projected annual
impacted areas; sound measurement and analysis should include afterburners or the
Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the Record of Decision to not use
afterburners in training flights. 2) Health Effects: address the health effects of startle
reactions; conduct medical surveys on the impacted populations of all areas affected;
address the health effects of loss of control; address the health effects of Growler noise
on children; address the health effects of sleep disturbance. 3) Alternatives: fully evaluate
one or more alternatives that base Growler aircraft at locations other than NAS Whidbey
Island. 4) Mitigation: fully consider mitigation measures including: modifying Growler flight
paths to minimize disturbance to populated areas; Growler training flights over populated
areas should be above 3,000 feet in elevation; afterburners should not be used on
Growler training flights over North Puget Sound; a ground run-up enclosure or hush
house should be used for noise suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups
and testing; test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the GE F414 engines
on the Growlers; notify citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either
airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice and Controlled Carrier Approaches. 5)
Economic Impacts: address the economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom,
Skagit, Jefferson, and Island Counties. 6) Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments: the EIS should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and
Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments due to their
deficiencies. 7) Effects of Jet Fuel Emissions: has independent research been conducted
on effects of jet fuel emissions or fuel dumping over the Olympic National Forest and
Olympic National Park, or over communities near where fuel is dumped? Jet fuel contains
heavy metals and other toxic compounds harmful to drinking water, crops, livestock, soil
and air. 8) Include the impacts of the ground-based activities covered in the Pacific
Northwest Electronic Warfare Range EA, the impacts on the areas affected by the
activities of the existing 82 Growler aircraft, and the impacts on the areas affected by the
additional 36 Growler aircraft in this one EIS.
(b)(6)
3041

6. Alternatives I live in the Lopez Village area of Lopez Island and, though not as horribly
affected by Growler testing as friends in the south end, I am nonetheless affected by far
more noise at my home than is tolerable. I strongly urge the Navy and our elected
officials to look at alternative testing sites. The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives . The EIS should fully evaluate
Island. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3042

I have lived in Port Townsend for nearly 23 years, the last decade in the North Beach
area. In recent years the noise from the fighter jet training in the area has become,
oftentimes, intolerable. The planes frequently fly til 1am, rattling our windows, shaking the
walls of our house and making sleep impossible. How does one measure anxiety,
discomfort with spending time outdoors and the need to keep the windows closed in the
summer?? I believe that the analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental
Assessments (EAs) was inadequate to support the findings that gave permission to
proceed. The Navy must enhance the analysis in order to support proposed actions in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The analysis should: conduct continuous sound
measurements in the northern and eastern portions of Jefferson County over at least a
one month period include C Weighted sound measure and analysis incorporate
supplemental noise measurements including sound exposure levels (SEL) and peak
sound levels (Lmax) in addition to Ldn document the projected annual number of events
including Jefferson County include afterburners, or the Navy should commit in the
flights with all due respect, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3043

To Whom it may concern: My name is Gerald Stehura and I live in Port Townsend,
Washington. I am 72 years old and own my home and two rentals within the Port
Townsend area. I am an Air Force Veteran. I am very concerned and dismayed about the
Navy's plans. I would like the Navy's EIS to include the following: A. Conduct continuous
sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period. B. .
Include C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. C. The EIS analysis
should incorporate supplemental noise measurements including Sound Exposure Level
(SEL) and Peak Sound Level (Lmax) in addition to Ldn. Document the projected annual
number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the
impacted areas including San Juan County. D. . Sound measurement and analysis in the
EIS should include afterburners or the Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the
Record of Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. Thank you (b)(6)
(b)(6)
Port Townsend, Wa 98368
(b)(6)
3044
port townsend, 98368

summer?? The EIS should address the health effects of Startle Reactions. The Navy
must conduct medical surveys on the impacted populations including Jefferson County.
(b)(6)
3045

I have concerns regarding the Navy's weapons testing in Olympic National Forrest.
(b)(6)
3046

To Whom it may concern: My name is Gerald Stehura and I live in Port Townsend,
Navy's plans. I would like the Navy's EIS to include the following: The EIS should address
the health effects of Startle Reactions. Conduct medical surveys on the impacted
activity. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3047

#7. Mitigation I've lived in the Lopez Village area for almost two years, having chosen it
for its quiet, peaceful and friendly lifestyle, compared to the Seattle area where I lived
most of my life. The Growler testing noises are now nearly as obnoxious where I live as
they are in other parts of my island, but they are obnoxious and aggressive and loud
enough to be intolerable. I'm so thankful I don't live near where the impact is the
strongest. Wherever these tests are held, there must be mitigation for those who suffer
the most. I want the Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce the noise impacts
of Growler training flights on ALL citizens, including in San Juan County. In preparing an
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3048

To Whom it may concern: My name is (b)(6)
and I live in Port Townsend,
Navy's plans. I would like the Navy's EIS to include the following: The EIS should
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3049

sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the study area including San Juan County
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3050

Navy's plans. I would like the Navy's EIS to include the following: The EIS should fully
Whidbey Island. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3051
port townsend, 98368

summer?? The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children.
Hospital staff, parents, teachers and children should be questioned about behavioral
responses to Growler noise. Mitigation should include shifting flight patterns to avoid
schools and anywhere else that children spend much of their time, including their homes.
(b)(6)
3052

Counties. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3053

summer?? Noise disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead to health disorders and
interfere with convalescence from illness. Low frequency sound, such as the Growler
emits, is significantly disturbing even at low sound pressure levels. The EIS should
address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the study area should document
field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied.
(b)(6)
3054

There is an ancient duty embodied in the public trust doctrine. Public property rights are
inherently reserved through the peoples social contract with our sovereign
(Federal)government. The trust is an attribute of sovereignty that cannot be alienated.
This principle designates government as trustee of crucial natural resources and
obligates it to act in a fiduciary capacity to protect such assets for the beneficiaries of the
trust, which include both present and future generations of citizens. The public trust
imposes a strict duty to protect the peoples commonwealth. The environmental integrity
of the Pacific Northwest, in particular, the Olympic National Forest, the Olympic National
Park, the Marine Sanctuaries, human life and other than human life in and around the
Salish Sea is under assault by Navy plans to increase the number of Growler jets training
out of Whidbey Island. The government, of which the Navy is a part, has a legal duty to
PROTECT the environment, including human life, from assault by noise, dumped jet fuel,
roaring jet passes over people's homes and over the wilderness where animals live and
people go for respite. The request for more jets to train in this area is unnecessary and
unconscionable. There are alternative places to train.
(b)(6)
3055

I moved to Port Townsend in 1992. It was pretty quiet then. It is not quiet now. I write to
question the basis of alternative location for the addition to the Growler fleet at NAS
Whidbey. The Navy did not study alternatives that base the Growlers at a location other
than NAS Whidbey Island. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality
all reasonable alternatives . I believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just
more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Go
forth and do your homework. thank you. from one of those who pays your salary.
(b)(6)
3056

I live near the southern end of San Juan Island with my wife. The noise from the Growler
operations on Whidbey Island is disrupting our quality of life. I have read many letters
written by residents of San Juan and Lopez Islands expressing concern and dismay over
the noise. I would like to add my voice to theirs and state that the noise levels are
detrimental to our health and quality of life. Please seriously conduct noise level tests, as
many have requested, and do whatever is required to mitigate this nuisance. Thank you,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3057
, WA 98368
My name is(b)(6)
, and I am writing to request that the Navy consider my
comments when preparing the EIS for the Growler Airfield Operations on Whidbey Island,
WA. In particular, I have health concerns. There is a large body of medical research on
the deleterious effects of noise, especially the low frequency spectrum, on human health.
Ive heard people say they may have to leave Whidbey Island (where they had planned
to spend the rest of their lives) because of the health impact. I do not know how the Navy
can justify changing our peaceful communities in this way. The noise issue impacts how
people lead their lives outdoors. I believe the Navy has a responsibility to citizens and
communities to: Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC
over a one-month period. Include C Weighted Sound Measurements and analysis in the
EIS. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements
5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including Jefferson and Clallum Counties.
Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or the
Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the Record of Decision (ROD) to not use
afterburners in training flights. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of
the residents in the study area including Jefferson County should document the extent of
this problem. An Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault field
The EIS should address the health effects of Startle Reactions. Conduct
medical surveys on the impacted populations including Jefferson and Clallum Counties.
Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. The EIS should address the
issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include notifying citizens in advance of all
Growler training operations at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing
Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). The EIS
should include shifting flight patterns to avoid school zones.
(b)(6)
3058

summer?? I want the Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce the noise
impacts of Growler training flights on citizens including Jefferson County. In preparing an
Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion. Growler training flight paths from
minimize routes over populated areas to the greatest extent possible. Growler training
flights over populated areas should be above 3,000 feet elevation. Afterburners should
for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. Notify citizens in advance of
all Growler training operations at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice
(b)(6)
3059
, WA 98368
My name is (b)(6)
WA. HAS THE NAVY CONSIDERED THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS? When I first saw
Puget Sound and the Olympics in 1971, I thought it was the most beautiful place Id ever
seen. It is still a most beautiful place, but there have been significant changes. While it
has relatively low population, Olympic National Park and the island communities host
over 3 million tourists per year. We are heavily reliant on visitors as an economic driver.
Has the Navy evaluated what a reduction in visitors would mean to the small businesses
of our communities? I can hardly imagine watching a sunset over Lake Quinault and
hearing a Navy jet roar over. People come here because it is the quietest and least
disturbed area of our country. Just the perception that Growler jets are conducting
electromagnetic war exercises nearby is a frightening thought. I believe the Navy EIS
should: ADDRESS ECONOMIC IMPACTS throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit,
Jefferson, Clallum and Island Counties. Thank you for your consideration, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3060

I live on the southend of Lopez Island by Islandale store. I have lived on Lopez Island for
29 years, with the past 18 years on the southend. I've owned my property on the
southend for 15 years and for the past 10 years have worked from home. In the past year
the noise from over-flights and growlers has exceeded anything I have ever experienced
in all my years on Lopez. It is unbearable! Quality of life has been degraded by the
constant rumbling and vibration from the over flights. I find it very difficult to concentrate
and conduct my home-based business with these disturbances and I feel my mental and
physical health is compromised. Some days it is so bad that I have to pack up my laptop
and drive to the northend and work at the library and take a break from the rumbling or
retreat at night to a friends house to get away from it. The Navy considers San Juan
County (SJC) a no significant impact area. This is clearly false. Analysis in the 2005 and
2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was inadequate to support the findings.
The Navy must enhance the analysis in order to support proposed actions in the
flights. I am also asking that the EIS study the health effects: Startle reactions, sleep
disturbance, risk to childrens health etc... The EIS should also address economic impacts
throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties and how the noise
disrupts productivity in the workplace, tourism (which we depend on) and other economic
issues. I am also asking that the EIS include an Alternative that would base Growlers
bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Thank you for your
attention to this matter. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3061

summer?? The Navy ignores the quiet and pristine nature of the region with its marine
protected areas, National monuments and national historical parks attract organic
retirees. Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone increasing the number of
jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property values. The EIS should address
economic impacts throughout Jefferson, San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit and Island
Counties.
(b)(6)
3062

oftentimes, intolerable. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments (EAs) are
deficient in the following areas as noted in numerous comments. Analysis Human health
consequences Alternatives Mitigation Economic consequences This EIS should conduct
all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and
Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments.
(b)(6)
3063

The ground based activities covered in the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range
EA should not have been disassociated from the draft EIS for the additional EA-18Gs.
The impacts of those activities, and the impacts on the areas that the 36 new EA-18Gs
will be flying over, as well as the existing 82 Growler jets, should be covered in this EIS.
Has independent research been conducted on effects of jet fuel emissions or fuel
dumping over the the regional waterways, the National Forest and National Park, or over
communities near where fuel is dumped? The Navy must hire an INDEPENDENT agency
to determine the effects of this procedure.
(b)(6)
3064

My family and I have lived on Lopez Island for 15 years. We have NEVER experienced
any sound remotely as disturbing as the Growler engine run-ups at Whidbey NAS and
the overflights. When we moved to Lopez, the Whidbey NAS Environmental Assessment
stated that the number of jets would be reduced, so we had every, reasonable
expectation that the sound, at the time, would be reduced. Instead the disruptive sound,
as measured at our home, has increased 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 fold, and this is not
only unfair, it is unethical and unpatriotic to create civilian collateral damage of this
magnitude. We ENTIRELY CHALLENGE THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
AVAILABLE FOR THIS EIS, based on the faulty previous Environment Assessments in
2005 and 2012. Neither of those EAs correctly analyzed the effects of bringing the
original Growlers to the Whidbey NAS. The White Houses Council for Environmental
Quality regulation 1502, section 14, on Proposed Alternatives states, In this section
proposed action or alternatives. We thus request that TWO ADDITIONAL
ALTERNATIVES BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS EIS as follows: 1. All Growlers, including
the ones already stationed at Whidbey NAS, should be removed from the base
permanently, or 2. Whidbey NAS should be closed permanently. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3065
Snohomish, WA 98296
We spend most of our summers on Lopez. The peace and quiet is all too often broken by
the sound "of Freedom" To add more planes / flights to the fleet will degrade the already
fragile environment. IT would be detrimental to those that visit the islands but even more
so that suffer from both the disturbance of the peace and the loss of tourism that they
depend on. Thank you for your consideration
(b)(6)
.
Lopez, WA 98261
The situation is getting worse not better. The planes are lower and the growlers is
keeping us from living our normal lives. This is brutal and frightening.
3066
(b)(6)
3067
Lopez, WA 98261
Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a
one-month period. It is only when you have actually conducted these tests that you will
discover how incredibly loud the noise is. It is frightening my grandchildren.
(b)(6)
.
Lopez, WA 98261
The situation is getting worse not better. The planes are lower and the growlers is
keeping us from living our normal lives. This is brutal and frightening and as a woman in
my 70's detrimental to my health.
3068
(b)(6)
3069

I am a mother and Navy veteran as well as a Navy spouse. We hear the jet noise nightly
and can hear high power engines from our home. My animals have shown no signs of
stress from the noise, it has never bothered my child, even in her infancy. I gave birth on
base and we were never inconvenienced or harmed within the hospital or during any
other business on base or in our dealings and daily life though out the island. We have
been to many public celebrations, farmer's markets etc and I have never seen any senior,
child or animal show any signs of stress or discomfort resulting from any present jet
noise. We have been to the hospital in Coupville as well as functions in and around
Coupville and have never been inconvenienced or harmed by the flights at the outlying
field. My family and I have attended gatherings at homes right next to the outlying field
with no ill effects. We live locally, we plan to stay locally after our family's service is at an
end. Our only distress in association with the base and OLF, is the stress and anger that
we feel when we are forced to view the signs defaming our Navy and our aircraft put up
by the road side from the "organic" farmers that cry foul at the base while seeking to take
money from it's hard working families.
(b)(6)
3070
Woodinville, WA 98072
I lived on the south end of Lopez Island for 4 years in the 1990's and since return several
times a year to rest, reconnect and enjoy the sanctuary that the south end of Lopez
provides. In the last year, the 2 times I've been vacationing on island, the noise and
over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything I have experienced and
totally effected my ability to enjoy my time there. All the reasons I have chosen to retreat
clearly false. I rely on this sanctuary to replenish myself so that I can return to my work
catching babies (which is very exhausting and depleting work) and be my best, safest
self. - The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion
of San Juan County over a one-month period. - The EIS should consider the impacts of
low frequency noise - The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition to daily
averages - The EIS should consider health effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of Control,
Sleep Disturbance and Impacts on Children - The EIS should fully evaluate one or more
and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Thank you
for considering.(b)
(6)
(b)(6)
3071

The handout from the scoping meeting only describes the proposal's effects on Whidbey
Island. Does this mean there will be no Growler flights over the North Olympic Peninsula?
If there will be flights over other areas the EIS should include impacts to all these areas.
(b)(6)
3072

To the folks at Whidbey Island Growler Airfield Operations, It's been suggested to me
that I write to you because the air traffic from your base is (even at this very moment)
driving me nuts. I've been told that the San Juan Islands are considered a 'no significant
impact' area. I am of the belief that the wild lands and waters and the wildlife that resides
there should be considered of the highest significant impact. If the planes must fly, let
them fly over the most populated (by humans) areas. If people really think they are being
protected, if they really think the sound of the U.S. military presence is the 'sound of
freedom' then let the higher populated areas suffer and let the quiet lands stay quiet. Let
the cetaceans who live here be able to hear each other calling and let the humans who
came here for peace live without the constant reminder of violent conflicts we never
asked for.
(b)(6)
3073

Ault Field will be subjected to Growler touch-and-go operations. The EIS should address
the Growler safety record. I understand the Growler is 36 times more likely to crash than
the Prowler.
(b)(6)
3074
EIS should include study that eliminated other sites for Growler manuevers
(b)(6)
3075

(b)(6)
3076

EIS should include referenced DoD need for additional electronic attack capabilities
(b)(6)
3077
Richmond, CA 94805
As a former and future resident of Seattle, I am concerned about the preservation of the
fragile environment in the surrounding areas. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan
nature, cyclists, hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. MANY visitors
other locations due to higher costs to the Navy disregards the broader economic
consequences for the region, and this is UNACCEPTABLE. The Navy must include in the
EIS the evaluation of Growler noise on local, largely tourist-related, economies of all the
counties impacted (San Juan, Whatcom, Jefferson, Clallam, Island, and Skagit Counties),
as well as impact on real estate values.
(b)(6)
3078

Regarding Noise - the EIS should address more then modeling and assessment. It
should address compensation to civilians for hearing loss and non-auditory health effects.
(b)(6)
3079

If the EIS must be compliant with NEPA then the Growler EIS should be combined with
the Navy Warfare Training EA and the NWTT EIS/OEIS as the three of these qualify as
"cumulative impact"
(b)(6)
3080
Lopez Island,
I live on Lopez Island in Washington State. I have just endured two utterly appalling days
courtesy of NASWI. - two particularly noisy days, which were preceded by many, and
which I expect will be followed by many more, of unacceptable noise levels from the
Growler aircraft. The constant noise is not merely an annoyance, it is a force destructive
of both physical and psychological health. I find myself sitting, shoulders hunched, fists
clenched, my entire body tensed listening to this onslaught. Even when the onslaught
pauses one awaits the next wave, paralysed with anticipation. A defenseless civilian
population is being subjected to conditions more to be expected on the battlefield and by,
no less, than our own military which is supposedly there for our security and protection.
The United States Navy should be ashamed of themselves and I, a US citizen, am
ashamed for them. The Navy are acting like thugs and bullies. They are inflicting
outrageous levels of noise upon us and they have been duplicitous and obfuscatory in
doing so. The Navy claimed that the Growlers would be less noisy than the predecessor
Prowlers. The local population were given no opportunity to have any input before this
misery was unleashed. Lopez Island was even classed as a no significant impact area.
Noise mitigation equipment, available for the Growlers, was foregone, no thought was
given to the construction of a Hush House and no consideration was given to the fact that
this is a populated area totally unsuitable for the kind of operations the Navy is
conducting here. I want to see the Navy obtain a legitimate and comprehensive
Environmental Impact Statement from a disinterested source showing the true nature of
the damage they are inflicting and and I want the Growlers removed to an unpopulated
region. The Navy has considered nothing besides their own convenience and
cost-savings in this matter. The cost of noise mitigation equipment and a Hush House are
miniscule when considered as a percentage of the money involved here and the
insistence in locating these planes here is selfish and lazy. There are other
considerations besides the convenience and preferences of the Navy and these should
be paramount. The damage to the civilian population in terms of health and quality of life,
the damage to the local economy, the damage to property values are all being ignored by
the Navy. These are things which I want the Navy to investigate and once they are
investigated it should be apparent that the Navy's actions here are simply criminal.
(b)(6)
3081

This EIS should not be a continuation of the 2005 and 2012 EAs as they did not include
sufficient study of noise and economic impacts. This may be a NEPA violation in that you
moved Growlers to NASWI without a full EIS.
(b)(6)
3082
lopez, WA 98261
no significant impact area. This is clearly false. -The Navy needs to take into account all
of the lives that are greatly effected directly by its actions. - The Navy should conduct
continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of San Juan County over a
one-month period. - The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency noise - The
EIS should include peak noise levels in addition to daily averages - The EIS should
(b)(6)
3083

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island for over 40 years. The impact of the engine
testing and overflight noise from the Growlers based at Ault field has significantly
impacted my life. We have put up with the jet noise for years, however the noise level has
increased and by all reports will continue to do so. Our day to day lives are affected by
continuous low level rumble noise,vibration in our household,startling very loud overflight
jet noise that makes communication difficult and causes great anxiety. I work with
children both as a preschool teacher and a horse back riding instructor and at times the
noise is so loud the children cover their ears,and I cannot make myself heard for
instruction and/or safety. We are severely impacted by the jet noise from Ault Field on the
south end of Lopez Island. This is not the environment I want to have to continue to
endure. I implore the Navy to consider the following points in the new EIS study. The
and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. The Navy
should conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of San Juan
County over a one-month period. - The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency
noise - The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition to daily averages - The EIS
should consider health effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of Control, Sleep Disturbance
and Impacts on Children - The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that
bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. - The EIS should evaluate
noise mitigation measures such as minimize flight routes over or near populated areas
and to fly above 3,000 feet; deploy a Hush House or Ground Run-up Enclosure; deploy
noise suppression measures for the Growler engines; notify citizens in advance of
Growler training operations at Ault Field. - This EIS should conduct all analysis from the
beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the deficient analysis and Records of
Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments.
(b)(6)
3084

Hello and thank you for taking the time to review these comments. I would like to request
the following be studied as part of the EIS for the Growlers: -Please thoroughly study the
current Growler noise levels' impact on all marine mammals including whales, seals, sea
lions, otters, and porpoise commonly found in the Salish Sea and Puget Sound. -Please
thoroughly study the Growler noise effect on the human ear and ear drum of all ages of
people. -Please study the effect of Growler noise on all amphibians common to the Puget
Sound and Salish Sea area. -Please study the effect of Growler noise on all birds native
to the Puget Sound and Salish Sea area. Thank you
(b)(6)
3085

I appreciates the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the Navys upcoming Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the addition of 36 EA-18G Growler jets to the
fleet of 82 existing Growlers at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island (NASWI.) I have been a
resident of western Washington most of my life. I currently live in Port Townsend,
Washington. I have spent time hiking, climbing and camping in Olympic National Park
and Olympic National Forest. I realize that the current EIS component is only about the
additional 36 EA-18G Growler jets, but the air and ground-based activities in this training
program are far too closely related to be considered separately. Why did the Navy
separate these 2 issues? I am especially concerned about hearing loss for humans and
wildlife. Damage is caused anywhere over 84 dBA without hearing protection. This noise
is dangerous. There have been readings recorded well over 84 dBA. I am concerned
about the peaks not the averages. Please report the peaks in the EIS. I am especially
concerned about our children. I am also concerned about the wildlife living on the
Peninsula. These animals rely on their hearing to survive. I want this to be addressed in
the EIS. Have you consulted with Gordon Hempton? Thank you for considering my
comments. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3086
Lopez, WA 98261
I have lived on the south end of Lopez since 1983. Though the Prowlers often did over
flights, the noise, low level vibration amplified across the water and endless roaring
sound is many orders of magnitude greater with the Growlers. They are very disturbing
and have significantly degraded the quality of life I moved here for and work hard to
maintain. Though the Navy considers San Juan County a non impact area, this is clearly
false. - The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern
portion of San Juan County over a one-month period. - The EIS should consider the
impacts of low frequency noise - The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition to
daily averages - The EIS should consider health effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of
and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3087
Arroyo Hondo, NM 87521

(b)(6)
New Mexico 87513 January 8,

2015 VIA http://www.whidbeyeis.com/Comment.aspx Re: Scoping comment EA-18G
Growler EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic 6506
Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS Peaceful Skies Coalition
(PSC) is submitting comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for EA18G
Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington, referred to
in these comments as Growler operations. The comments are in response to the
notification published in the Federal Register stating the scoping process will be used to
identify community concerns and local issues to be addressed in the EIS. Federal
agencies, state agencies, local agencies, Native American Indian Tribes and Nations, the
public, and interested persons are encouraged to provide comments to the DoN to
identify specific issues or topics of environmental concern that the commenter believes
the DoN should consider. Federal Register/ Vol. 78, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5,
2013 / Notices - 54635 NEPA Violation Isolating a Proposed Project PSC has identified
a large number, but not all, military expansions of land, water and airspace underway
right now across the United States. Although there is considerable overlap and
adjacencies among the projects, each DOD NEPA document we have read pretends to
be limited to a very local area, a tiny piece of the big map. These actions constitute a
clear violation of NEPA. The regulations are very clear that the government cannot
isolate a proposed project, viewing it in a vacuum. (40 C.F.R. 1508.25(a)) The federal
courts have consistently upheld this requirement. The Navy has not made the slightest
effort to uphold this regulation. It is conducting scoping for the Growler EIS and at the
same time as other proposals. Increased Growler operations will greatly increase
debilitating noise and air pollution on Whidbey Island and the public needs full disclosure
of all current and near-future plans for the region. The website of the Commander, Navy
Installations Command (CNIC), lists four current NEPA proposals in the Navy Region
Northwest area of responsibility. Electronic Warfare Range EA EA-18G Growler EIS
Northwest Training and Testing - Supplement to the Draft EIS/OEIS Additional Related
Information: Current NAS Whidbey Island information regarding Electronic Warfare In
order for the public to provide informed comment on the expansion of Growler operations,
the public needs to be provided all information about adjacent and other proposed federal
projects; whether those on public lands, private lands, or military land and airspace. A
bioregional approach is essential to an accurate impacts analysis. The lands within the
boundary area comprise only a part of the larger bioregion. Avian flyways, watersheds,
wildlife migratory pathways, air and water quality and other natural systems extend well
beyond the boundaries of the proposed Growler operations. In the development of the
EIS, cumulative impacts must include all activities in the area, not only those in a narrow
geographical location. As stated above, the study should consider entire bioregions, not
just the area within the proposed Growler operations area. As the NEPA analysis is
prepared, establishing the proper geographic scope or boundary for a cumulative impacts
analysis is extremely important because the proposed action will have direct, indirect,
and additive effects on resources far beyond the immediate area. By way of example,
for resident or migratory wildlife, the appropriate geographic area for the cumulative
impacts analysis will be the species habitat or breeding grounds, migration route,
wintering areas, or total range of affected population units. Consideration of other state,
private, and other federal actions as well as natural occurrences or events that have
taken place, are taking place, or proposed to take place that will similarly impact the
regions wildlife populations and habitat, and human communities. Community
Involvement DOD has an apparently infinite budget for keeping communities very busy
with endless NEPA requests. From the perspective of the PSC, most of the public
outreach, education, and involvement is provided by community volunteers while private
contractors crank out low quality NEPA documents. Right now DOD and its many
contractors are simultaneously conducting Scoping, Public Hearings, Draft and Final EAs
and Draft and Final EISs, and RODs. Additionally, considerable amounts of
encroachment planning and massive Joint Land Use Study are underway across the
country. We hope you find these comments to be helpful, informative, and useful in your
efforts to bring this proposal into compliance with the NEPA and other substantive
statutes. Peaceful Skies Coalition requests that Carol Miller, an officer of the coalition, be
placed on the recipient list for notices of any developments in the EA18G Growler
Airfield Operations proposal as it moves forward. If you have any questions or comments,
or wish to discuss the issues raised in this comment please do not hesitate to contact the
Peaceful Skies Coalition representative. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3087
(b)(6)
3088
Lopez, WA 98261
I have lived on the south end of Lopez since 1983. Though the Prowlers often did over
flights, the noise, low level vibration amplified across the water and endless roaring
sound is many orders of magnitude greater with the Growlers. They are very disturbing
and have significantly degraded the quality of life I moved here for and work hard to
maintain. Though the Navy considers San Juan County a non impact area, this is clearly
false. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of
kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. Continuation of the current level of jet
Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3089

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island for over 40 years. The proposed
alternatives for an increased Growler presence must be analysed by a new and
comprehensive EIS statement. Among the main 9 elements that must be analysed,(See
previous comment), I would also like to request that the intrusive noise impact is studied
for the effects on the well being and environment of wildlife both endangered and not in
our area. This would include, but not be limited to the resident Orca whale population, as
well as native bird and wildlife populations on the San Juan Islands.
(b)(6)
3090

To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident and property owner in the center of San Juan
Island. My family frequently experiences the low grumble and vibrations of the Growler
activity on Whidbey Island. It is disruptive and disturbing to have the usual calm and quiet
of this island be invaded by this noise. The Navy falsely considers San Juan County
(SJC) as a no significant impact area this disturbance clearly has significance on our
lives. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) is
inadequate and incomplete. The Growlers were moved to NASWI without a full EIS and
without sufficient study of the following impacts to San Juan County and the region: noise
impacts, health consequences, impacts to wildlife and ecosystems, and economic
impacts. Further, both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were deficient
by not adequately planning for the mitigation of noise from the Growlers. The Navy must
enhance the analysis in order to support proposed actions in the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The EIS should study and include the following: Noise Measurements
The EIS should include the study of continuous sound measurements in San Juan
County, particularly in the southern portion, over a one-month period. Include C-Weighted
sound measurements and analysis. Incorporate supplemental noise measurements
dB increments throughout San Juan County. Sound measurement and analysis should
include afterburners. Startle Reactions Medical surveys studying the health effects of
startle reactions should be conducted on the impacted populations of San Juan County.
Loss of Control Mitigation should include notifying citizens in advance of all Growler
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sleep disturbance A survey of the residents in
San Juan County should document the extent of this problem. In addition, the full EIS
must specifically address: Impacts to the San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge,
which is a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System as designated by
Congress to be a wilderness area where seabirds, eagles, and marine mammals will
have an undisturbed place to live and raise their young. Impacts to San Juan Countys
economy, which is dependent on tourism and its reputation as a prime destination for
those seeking to live in a peaceful place with abundant outdoor recreational activities.
Impacts to the San Juan Islands National Monument and in particular the Iceberg Point
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and the Point Colville ACEC. The 1990
Management Plan (a NEPA document) for these properties exists to protect the natural
qualities of these ACEC properties. Impacts to San Juan Countys property values for
those properties most affected by Growler impacts and including any potential
redistribution of property tax burden to San Juan County property owners that are not
directly affected. It is clear to those of us who live here, that the introduction of the
Growler is negatively impacting San Juan. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more
alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. There are
other possibilities where Growler training and basing can happen and these alternatives
should be fully considered. This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and
Environmental Assessments. Thank you for consideration of these comments.
(b)(6)
3091

I have carefully reviewed the documents prepared for the previous EIS for the expansion
of EA 18G Growler aircraft based at Ault Field. None of the activities of these aircraft at
the Outlying Field (OLF) were discussed, including the effects on the Marbled Murrelet
and other endangered species of wildlife. The new EIS must include this information
because so much activity is conducted at OLF. The new EIS must also include
information about and adverse effects of the new flight patterns at Alt Field, the OLF and
all operations west across the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the communities and lands of the
Olympic Peninsula, Olympic National Park, the Olympic National Forest, and Washington
State Department of Natural Resources lands, all of which have nesting marbled
murrelets and many other species of concern that will be adversely affected by this
expansion of activities described by the proposal. Earnestly yours, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3092

As a business owner I am concerned about the economic effects of the increased flights
over my community. Real estate sales and values will decrease as the environment
becomes intolerable because of the jet noise at all hours of the day and night. My
business depends on the building business. Economic effects of the increased number of
EA18 Growler jets and their flight patterns over our communities must be assessed in this
EIS. Sincerely yours, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3093
Duncan, WY v9l4b6
Please do not view your neighbours to the north as collateral damage for war games that
belong in video games. 1. Past Analysis Insufficient For decades studies of airport noise
have used the Day-Night Average (Ldn) metric for assessing impacts, appropriate for
airports with typical operations 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. However, Growler training
flights cause intermittent noise in a region with very low background noise of 35 45 dBA
(outside measurement), much lower than the quiet suburban neighborhood background
noise level cited in the Wyle report for the 2012 EA. The EIS analysis should incorporate
deficient in the following areas: Analysis Human health consequences Alternatives
Mitigation Economic consequences This EIS should conduct all analysis from the
3093
(b)(6)
3094

The Quinault, Hoh, Quileute, Makah, Elwha Klallam, Jamestown SKlallam, Port Gamble
SKlallam and Skokomish native american tribes have a recognized relationship to the
Olympic National Park. The tribal land would be polluted both through noise pollution and
emissions from the growler jets. In addition the electromagnetic warfare training would
put tribal members at risk, by unproven, experimental long-term electromagnetic
exposure. Protected wildlife would also be affected. There has been a long history of the
US Government taking advantage of native american populations and land. Let us not let
this happen again. Thank you.
(b)(6)
3095

I have lived on Lopez Island for nearly 40 years. I wish I could say I was getting used to
the jet noise. It seems wrong for the Navy to be conducting an EIS of their own abuse of
the humans and biosphere which surround the base. How about an outside agency? One
of the impacts the Navy should consider is how eventually after being driven crazy by ear
splitting noise followed by continuous irregular jet noise a person FEELS LIKE HURTING
SOMEONE!! I hate to think of all the negative ways this might express itself, from being
mean to children, to.... who knows what? > - The Navy should conduct continuous sound
measurements in the southern portion of San Juan County over a one-month period. > The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency noise > - The EIS should include
peak noise levels in addition to daily averages > - The EIS should consider health effects
of Startle Reaction, Loss of Control, Sleep Disturbance and Impacts on Children > - The
EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other
than NAS Whidbey Island. > - The EIS should evaluate noise mitigation measures such
as minimize flight routes over or near populated areas and to fly above 3,000 feet; deploy
a Hush House or Ground Run-up Enclosure; deploy noise suppression measures for the
Growler engines; notify citizens in advance of Growler training operations at Ault Field. >
- This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier
off of, the deficient analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments. > Thank you for your concern, sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3096

Damage to hearing is caused anywhere over 84dBA without hearing protection. The
growler jets have noise levels over 100+ decibels.
(b)(6)
3097

(b)(6)
3098

The growler jet expansion program along with the use of electromagnetic radiation is not
safe for humans and animals. Please see the following research:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-C
harts.pdf 5 picowatts/cm2 (10- 12) Changed growth rates in yeast cells 0.1 nanowatt/cm2
(10-10) or 100 picowatts/cm2 Super-low intensity RFR effects at MW reasonant
frequencies resulted in changes in genes; problems with chromatin condensation (DNA)
intensities comparable to base stations Belyaev, 1997 0.00034 uW/cm2 Chronic
exposure to mobile phone pulsed RF significantly reduced sperm count, RFR decreased
cell proliferation at 960 MHz GSM 217 Hz for 30-min exposure Behari, 2006 Velizarov,
1999 0.0005 uW/cm2 0.0006 - 0.0128 uW/cm2 Fatigue, depressive tendency, sleeping
disorders, concentration difficulties, cardiovascular problems reported with exposure to
GSM 900/1800 MHz cell phone signal at base station level exposures. Oberfeld, 2004
Heinrich, 2010 Thomas, 2010 Mohler, 2010 Thomas, 2008 0.003 - 0.02 uW/cm2 In
children and adolescents (8-17 yrs) short-term exposure caused headache, irritation,
concentration difficulties in school. 0.003 to 0.05 uW/cm2 In children and adolescents
(8-17 yrs) short-term exposure caused conduct problems in school (behavioral problems)
0.005 uW/cm2 0.005 - 0.04 uW/cm2 In adults (30-60 yrs) chronic exposure caused sleep
disturbances, (but not significantly increased across the entire population) 0.006 - 0.01
uW/cm2 0.01 - 0.11 uW/cm2 Chronic exposure to base station RF (whole-body) in
humans showed increased stress hormones; dopamine levels substantially decreased;
higher levels of adrenaline and nor-adrenaline; dose-response seen; produced chronic
physiological stress in cells even after 1.5 years. Buchner, 2012 Navarro, 2003 Reported
Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower,
Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Power Density
(Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) Reference As low as (10-13) or 100 femtowatts/cm2
Super-low intensity RFR effects at MW reasonant frequencies resulted in changes in
genes; problems with chromatin conformation (DNA) Belyaev, 1997 Grundler, 1992
Adults exposed to short-term cell phone radiation reported headaches, concentration
difficulties (differences not significant, but elevated) RFR from cell towers caused fatigue,
headaches, sleeping problems 0.005 - 0.04 uW/cm2 Adults exposed to short-term cell
phone radiation reported headaches, concentration difficulties (differences not significant,
but elevated) 0.015 - 0.21 uW/cm2 Adults exposed to short-term GSM 900 radiation
reported changes in mental state (e.g., calmness) but limitations of study on language
descriptors prevented refined word choices (stupified, zoned-out) Augner, 2009 0.05 - 0.1
uW/cm2 0.05 - 0.1 uW/cm2 RFR linked to adverse neurological, cardio symptoms and
cancer risk RFR related to headache, concentration and sleeping problems, fatigue
Khurana, 2010 Kundi, 2009 0.07 - 0.1 uW/cm2 Sperm head abnormalities in mice
exposed for 6-months to base station level RF/MW. Sperm head abnormalities occurred
in 39% to 46% exposed mice (only 2% in controls) abnormalities was also found to be
dose dependent. The implications of the pin-head and banana-shaped sperm head. The
occurrence of sperm head observed increase occurrence of sperm head abnormalities on
the reproductive health of humans living in close proximity to GSM base stations were
discussed." Otitoloju, 2010 0.38 uW/cm2 RFR affected calcium metabolism in heart cells
RFR caused emotional behavior changes, free-radical damage by super-weak MWs RFR
from 3G cell towers decreased cognition, well-being Motor function, memory and
attention of school children affected (Latvia) Schwartz, 1990 0.8 - 10 uW/cm2 Akoev,
2002 0.13 uW/cm2 Zwamborn, 2003 0.16 uW/cm2 Kolodynski, 1996 0.168 - 1.053
uW/cm2 Irreversible infertility in mice after 5 generations of exposure to RFR from an
'antenna park' Magras & Zenos, 1997 0.2 - 8 uW/cm2 0.2 - 8 uW/cm2 RFR caused a
two-fold increase in leukemia in children RFR decreased survival in children with
leukemia Hocking, 1996 Hocking, 2000 0.21 - 1.28 uW/cm2 Adolescents and adults
exposed only 45 min to UMTS cell phone radiation reported increases In headaches.
Riddervold, 2008 Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at
Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF
Intensities) Power Density (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) Reference 0.01 - 0.05
uW/cm2 Adults (18-91 yrs) with short-term exposure to GSM cell phone radiation
reported headache, neurological problems, sleep and concentration problems. Hutter,
2006 Thomas, 2008 0.5 - 1.0 uW/cm2 Wi-FI level laptop exposure for 4-hr resulted in
decrease in sperm viability, DNA fragmentation with sperm samples placed in petri
dishes under a laptop connected via WI-FI to the internet. Avendano, 2012 1.0 uW/cm2
1.0 uW/cm2 1.0 uW/cm2 RFR induced pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier
Persson, 1997 Fesenko, 1999 Novoselova, 1999 1.0 uW/cm2 Short-term (50 min)
exposure in electrosensitive patients, caused loss of well-being after GSM and especially
UMTS cell phone radiation exposure Eltiti, 2007 1.3 - 5.7 uW/cm2 RFR associated with a
doubling of leukemia in adults RFR exposure affected kidney development in rats
(in-utero exposure) Dolk, 1997 1.25 uW/cm2 Pyrpasopoulou, 2004 1.5 uW/cm2 2
uW/cm2 2.5 uW/cm2 2 - 4 uW/cm2 4 uW/cm2 RFR reduced memory function in rats RFR
induced double-strand DNA damage in rat brain cells RFR affected calcium
concentrations in heart muscle cells Altered cell membranes; acetycholine-induced ion
channel disruption RFR caused changes in hippocampus (brain memory and learning)
Memory impairment, slowed motor skills and retarded learning in children RFR caused
drop in NK lymphocytes (immune function decreased) 20 minutes of RFR at cell tower
frequencies induced cell stress response RFR caused impaired nervous system activity
RFR induced DNA damage in cells Nittby, 2007 Kesari, 2008 Wolke, 1996 D'Inzeo, 1988
Tattersall, 2001 Chiang, 1989 Boscolo, 2001 Kwee, 2001 Dumansky, 1974 Phillips, 1998
4 - 15 uW/cm2 5 uW/cm2 5.25 uW/cm2 5 - 10 uW/cm2 6 uW/cm2 Reported Biological
Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi,
Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Power Density
(Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) Reference 0.5 uW/cm2 Significant degeneration of
seminiferous epithelium in mice at 2.45 GHz, 30-40 min. Saunders, 1981 RFR caused
significant effect on immune function in mice RFR affected function of the immune
system 10 - 100 uW/cm2 Increased risk in radar operators of cancer; very short latency
period; dose response to exposure level of RFR reported. Richter, 2000 12.5 uW/cm2
13.5 uW/cm2 20 uW/cm2 28.2 uW/cm2 37.5 uW/cm2 45 uW/cm2 50 uW/cm2 50 uW/cm2
60 uW/cm2 60 uW/cm2 60 uW/cm2 65 uW/cm2 92.5 uW/cm2 100 uW/cm2 100 uW/cm2
120 uW/cm2 RFR caused calcium efflux in cells - can affect many critical cell functions
RFR affected human lymphocytes - induced stress response in cells Increase in serum
cortisol (a stress hormone) RFR increased free radical production in rat cells Dutta, 1989
Sarimov, 2004 Mann, 1998 Yurekli, 2006 Veyret, 1991 Forgacs, 2006 Salford, 2003
Mann, 1996 Somozy, 1991 Stankiewicz, 2006 Lebedeva, 2000 Ivaschuk, 1999 Belyaev,
2005 Elekes, 1996 Navakatikian, 1994 Salford, 1994 Reported Biological Effects from
Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop
3098
and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Power Density (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2)

Reference 8.75 uW/cm2 10 uW/cm2 RFR at 900 MHz for 2-12 hours caused DNA breaks
in leukemia cells Changes in behavior (avoidance) after 0.5 hour exposure to pulsed RFR
Marinelli, 2004 Navakatikian, 1994 Immune system effects - elevation of PFC count
(antibody producing cells Pulsed RFR affected serum testosterone levels in mice Cell
phone RFR caused a pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier in 1 hour An 18%
reduction in REM sleep (important to memory and learning functions) RFR caused
structural changes in cells of mouse embryos Pulsed RFR affected immune function in
white blood cells Cortex of the brain was activated by 15 minutes of 902 MHz cell phone
RFR affected genes related to cancer RFR caused genetic changes in human white
blood cells Changes in immune function A 24.3% drop in testosterone after 6 hours of
CW RFR exposure A pathological leakage in the blood-brain barrier with 915 MHz cell
RF STANDARDS Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at
Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF
Intensities) Power Density (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) Reference 500 uW/cm2
500 uW/cm2 Intestinal epithelial cells exposed to 2.45 GHz pulsed at 16 Hz showed
changes in intercellular calcium. A 24.6% drop in testosterone and 23.2% drop in insulin
after 12 hrs of pulsed RFR exposure. Somozy, 1993 Navakatikian, 1994 530 - 600
uW/cm2 1000 uW/cm2 5000 uW/cm2 BACKGROUND LEVELS 0.003 uW/cm2 Limit for
uncontrolled public exposure to 800-900 MHz PCS STANDARD for public exposure (as
of September 1,1997) PCS STANDARD for occupational exposure (as of September 1,
1997) ANSI/IEEE and FCC FCC, 1996 FCC, 1996 0.05 uW/cm2 0.1 - 10 uW/cm2
Background RF levels in US cities and suburbs in the 1990s Median ambient power
density in cities in Sweden (30-2000 MHz) Ambient power density within 100-200' of cell
site in US (data from 2000) Mantiply, 1997 Hamnierius, 2000 Sage, 2000 SAR
(Watts/Kilogram) Reference 0.000064 - 0.000078 W/Kg Well-being and cognitive function
affected in humans exposed to GSM-UMTS cell phone frequencies; RF levels similar
near cell sites TNO Physics and Schwartz, 1990 Kwee, 1997 0.00015 - 0.003 W/Kg
Calcium ion movement in isolated frog heart tissue is increased 18% (P 1.5 joules/Kg in
human tissues Persson, 1997 0.0059 W/Kg Cell phone RFR induces glioma (brain
cancer) cells to significantly increase thymidine uptake, which may be indication of more
cell division Stagg, 1997 0.014 W/Kg 0.015 W/Kg Sperm damage from oxidative stress
and lowered melatonin levels resulted from 2-hr per day/45 days exposure to 10 GHz.
Kumar, 2012 Veyret, 1991 0.02 W/Kg A single, 2-hr exposure to GSM cell phone
radiation results in serious neuron damage (brain cell damage) and death in cortex,
hippocampus, and basal ganglia of brain- even 50+ days later blood-brain barrier is still
leaking albumin (P
3098
(b)(6)
3099

A National Park Service report issued in July 2014 showed that in 2013, 3,085,340
visitors to Olympic National Park spent $245,894,100 in communities near the
parkspending that supported 2,993 local jobs. People come for the pristine wilderness,
beauty and quiet. Having constant growler jet fly overs will ruin this and cripple our
economy.
(b)(6)
3100
Please address the following environmental impacts pertaining to FCLP at OLF
Coupeville in the EIS: 1. Disruption and health affects to children and their parents
practicing and playing sports at Rhododendron Park. Include hearing protection training,
liaising and scheduling with community and coaches, and hearing monitoring. 2. Increase
of FCLP at OLF necessary due to increase of land based growler practice at Ault Field. 3.
Disruption of local business near the OLF due to increased magnitude (higher noise level
of growlers compared to prowlers), frequency, unpredictability, and number of daytime
flights. 4. Health and learning affects to children in Coupeville area schools and homes.
5. Economic impact to tourism-related business in the Coupeville area.
(b)(6)
3101

Growlers at Ault field have exceeded anything I have experienced in the last 25 years. I
chose to live here to embrace and enjoy the peaceful nature of the area. The growing
amount of jet noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers is upsetting and
alarming. The Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact area. This
is clearly false. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments
order to support proposed actions in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The
current EIS should study the following: Conduct continuous sound measurements (on the
ground not computer modeling) in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period
Include C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. The EIS analysis
should incorporate supplemental noise measurements including Sound Exposure Level
(LCE) and Peak Sound Level (LCPeak) in addition to Ldn. Sound measurement and
flights over North Puget Sound. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
3102
,
elevation of blood pressure. I have witnessed my nephew fearful, terrified to go outside
when the jets fly overhead. He is inconsolable and as a parent of two young children it is
heart breaking to see. References: Goldman B: Sheshatshit, Labrador A Town without
Hope. Can Med Assoc J, 141:602-605,1989.1162 (b)(6) Page 13 of 23. Bartels K:
should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children. Mitigation should
include shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3103

Most of the training that the US Navy seeks can be done through computer simulation.
This would save an incredible amount of money, be safe, and not pollute our
environment. The growler electronic warfare jets, the loudest ever built (150 decibels),
each burn 1,304 gallons/hour, producing 12.5 metric tons of CO2 hourly or 23% more
than the annual CO2 emissions of a Washington State citizen.
(b)(6)
3104

I have enjoyed living on Lopez Island for over 25 years. I consider Lopez a rural area with
quiet nights. When jet noise shatters the peaceful rest time of sleep, I find my stress level
rising and unable to fall back to sleep. Research shows that the indoor threshold for
falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Our noise journals show that indoor sound levels from
area including San Juan County should document the extent of this problem. An action
alternative that removes FCLP and Approach practice from Ault field between 2000 and
0800 hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3105

(b)(6)
3106

The jets from NASWI have not bothered me much until this last year. Now I experience
them all over the Island. With the Federally Designated National Monument San Juan
county is a highly attractive destination. Residents, business owners, visitors alike are
disturbed by the amount of jet noise. I experience them often with their deafening
vibrations. Even at our ferry landing at the north end their noise is not uncommon. I do
not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that would base Growlers
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3107

I believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly determined that
there was no adverse noise impact from the introduction of the Growlers. Therefore it
was inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. In preparing an Environmental Impact
mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. At a
timelines for completion. g) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whidbey Island should
possible. h) Growler training flights over populated areas including San Juan County
should be above 3,000 feet elevation. i) Afterburners should not be used on Growler
training flights over North Puget Sound. j) A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House
testing. k) Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric
F414 engines used on the Growlers. l) Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training
Carrier Approaches (CCAs), takeoffs and engine run-up. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3108

Growlers are changing the quality of life in San Juan County. The San Juan County
of economic growth which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine
and retirees. Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone increasing the number
of jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property values. The EIS should address
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3109

It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were deficient
and incomplete. The Growlers were moved to NASWI without a full EIS and without
sufficient study of noise impacts, health consequences, plans for mitigation of noise from
the Growlers, and economic impacts to the region. The low frequency noise which is the
of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3110

NO MORE GROWLERS. THE NAVY ALREADY HAS AREAS IN IDAHO THAT ARE
APPROVED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE THEY WISH TO INFLICT.
ENOUGH ALREADY. Now the Navy wants to spread its Growler noise-print all over the
Olympic Peninsulas National Park, the surrounding national forest, and adjacent
communities. The Navy plans to take and periodically close large swathes of the Olympic
National Forest, along with airspace over it and the Olympic National Park, for its
Northwest Electromagnetic Radiation Warfare training program. It already performs this
training on four bases in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada, but now says it needs
the Olympic Peninsula because it wants ALL Growlers to be home-based at Whidbey
Naval Air Station. These jets will fly directly over North Olympic Peninsula communities
and cities for 260 days per year, to do 2,900 training exercises for 8-16 hours per day at
15 locations using equipment that emits enough electromagnetic radiation to melt eye
tissue after brief exposure. In addition, the Growler jets have the capacity to jam all
electronic signals, including cellphones, navigational equipment, radio stations and 911
and fire-rescue communications, and they carry electronic attack weapons that include
lasers, high-powered microwaves, electromagnetic radiation, and anti-radiation devices
that use concentrated, directed beams of energy. A Navy supporting document says,
Friendly Electronic Attack could potentially deny essential services to a local population
that, in turn, could result in loss of life and/or political ramifications.
(b)(6)
3111

TO: EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Atlantic 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attention: Code EV21/SS FROM:
(b)(6)
, U.S.A. As someone who chose to live on the Olympic
Peninsula precisely for its relatively pristine environment, I am already outraged at the
noise level manifested in both 2013 and--especially--in 2014. Yet the Navy proposes
flying even more jets for more days, more hours. To add insult to injury, parts of the
public involvement process appear to have been designed to divert, truncate, or
completely bypass the means by which the public can make its objections known and
officially recorded. Since comments are now being sought on this "air only" portion of the
Navy's proposed activities, I will try to limit my concerns to the referenced project piece,
namely the Growler flights from Whidbey Island. The Growler noise has negative effects
on life (all life, not just human life), and the new EIS should thoroughly examine these
effects, basing decisions upon scientific study, not just on purported "lack of public
objection." In a nutshell, the problem with jet noise is that it displaces whatever is going
on. When Growlers are flying nearby, there is no such thing as concentration,
productivity, communication, relaxation, or sleep. In addition to the short-term disruption,
long-term physical and mental harm might be occurring. The new EIS should address
these kinds of harms, as detailed below. * Hearing damage seems likely, given the sound
levels measured by independent researchers at Whidbey Island. The Navy's use of
multi-day-night averaging does not reveal the dangerous nature of HIGH PEAK LEVELS
OF SOUND. In addition, the Navy's exclusion of afterburner noise or other equipment
that would make its numbers look "bad" clearly is a case of giving only the best-case
scenario. The EIS should use studies incorporating peak sound levels and other
non-whitewashed scenarios, including actual jet takeoffs and flights. Studies of effects on
non-human animals should also be included, as people are not the only ones harmed by
loud noise. Some marine mammals are especially sensitive to the effects created by loud
sounds. * The jet noise hurts not only by its peak levels, but also by the sheer number of
hours it ruins the peace of our environment. Sometimes the noise is almost continuous
for literally hours. The effects of SUSTAINED LOUD NOISE (industrial workplace noise,
rock concerts, earphones, etc.) have already been shown to cause hearing loss. The EIS
should use up-to-date, scientific, independent studies in its consideration of noise effects
on health. * In addition to peak noise and prolonged noise, there is also the reaction to
the often-unexpected nature of the Growler noise, which I have seen referred to as THE
STARTLE EFFECT. The seemingly random blast of noise triggers a fight-or-flight
response that I observed in dogs, birds, and even in myself. Very few events in nature
cause such loud bursts of noise, and it inevitably signals DANGER. The EIS should
include studies on how such extreme and random bursts of noise affect living things (not
just humans). * But wait! There's more! The Navy sometimes announces what days it
plans to fly. Unfortunately, they do not always announce these, and even more
unfortunately, they do not adhere to what they state. There have been times when the
Navy claimed the jets would fly at certain times of the day but actually flew at other times.
This was most noticeable when the flying occurred at night, especially late at night.
Sometimes the flying would seem to stop in the early evening, as announced, but then it
would restart at 10:30 pm and continue past midnight. It makes the Navy come across as
a bully who is grabbing control of our own lives, control that we did not give to it nor want
it to have. Obviously, the LATE-NIGHT FLYING ruins sleep for many of us, including
myself. The EIS should address the harm done by such sleep disturbance/deprivation,
AND the Navy should immediately cease flights after 8 pm (and also before 8 am at the
earliest). This is such a simple mitigative change, and yet when questioned why fly so
late, the Navy claimed it needed to train pilots to fly in the dark. If that is the case, then
why were those flights made in June and July--the months with the latest advent of
darkness?!!!?? As a side note, when a sudden burst of Growler noise woke me up very
late one night, it also greatly threw off a white-crowned sparrow's schedule. At that time
of year they call out frequently during the daytime. Never at night. Yet that time, the
sparrow immediately launched into its call...in the black of night. I wonder what other
animals were confused or frightened by the unexpected noise. * Now, on to the
ECONOMIC EFFECTS of increased Growler flights. You can call it the sound of freedom
or (for a few) the sound of money being made, but for many people here it's the sound of
money going down the drain. The economic analysis the Navy did only looks at the
convenience for Navy personnel and money saved by flying from Whidbey instead of
from the other bases it could use. However, this is not only one-sided, it is also extremely
limited an analysis. What about the huge cost of buying additional Growler jets, let alone
flying them for more hours, more days? There's an 800-pound gorilla in this economic
analysis room, and the EIS needs to use a complete analysis that looks at this gorilla.
Actually, there's an even bigger gorilla in the room, namely the negative effects of
increased flying on NON-Navy residents. Visitors drawn to the exceptional quiet found in
Olympic National Park and wilderness portions of our national forests do not want to hear
extreme jet noise. ONP is an economic lifeblood on the Olympic Peninsula, supporting
jobs in small rural towns as well as towns and cities "on the way there". To sully one of
the park's outstanding features--its quietness--is to assault the financial health of the
peninsula overall. The EIS should estimate the lost income that would result from
increased jet noise driving away visitors. Negative ECONOMIC EFFECTS also accrue to
residents in other ways. A decrease in income resulting from noise-caused visitor
reduction ripples into real estate values. As a double whammy, residents themselves
might choose to leave and would-be residents choose not to buy homes here. Any way
you look at it, loud jet noise causes only bad economic effects. The EIS should examine
the negative effects of jet noise on area real estate values. I have even more concerns
about the proposed increased Growler flights which I state in a separate letter.
3111
(b)(6)
3112

TO: EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Atlantic 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attention: Code EV21/SS FROM:
(b)(6)
U.S.A. In a separate letter, I listed my concerns about noise
levels and their effects. In this letter, I address issues that are not directly about the
sound per se but are closely tied to it. * People have observed that Navy pilots do not
follow their own restrictions on flight altitude. The EIS should assume this would continue
to be the case, and assume levels of sound generated much closer to ground height than
allegedly allowed. Aside from this, the continuing military attitude of "boys will be boys" is
repulsive and antiquated. It is a military organization; personnel are supposed to follow
rules. Are there no consequences for pilots violating Navy requirements? * The No Action
alternative requires keeping "only" 82 Growler jets already in existence. Why do all the
other alternatives call for greater numbers of jets at Whidbey? There are no alternatives
that involve using other locations. The EIS should include alternatives that use the
existing number of Growlers at other bases. It appears that no real consideration was
given to using other locations for this highly intrusive project. * The EIS should address
the existence or creation of mitigative technologies and/or methods to reduce noise
levels. And if no significant mitigative action is possible, the EIS should address the
possibility of simply not doing the activity at all. For example, perhaps afterburner use
should be outright forbidden in the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula area. Aside from
my concerns about the subject Growler proposal, I am shocked and angry at the Navy's
hubris during the previous public comment period about land-based electronic warfare
training. To have even gotten to this point amounts to teetering on top of a house of
cards, since the Environmental Assessment lacks peer-reviewed analysis of the military
activity's effects on fire hazard, noise pollution, air pollution, historical and cultural assets,
both migratory and resident bird health, property values on the entire Olympic Peninsula,
short-term and long-term damage from radiation, damage to flora, changes to geological
structures that could be compromised by loud sounds, marine life health, water quality,
climate alteration...in short, the total environment. The suspicions aroused by such
egregious shortcomings could possibly be reduced if a full EIS using independent and
up-to-date scientific data were done instead of relying on a shoddy EA. I bring this up
because the land-based training IS part of the same project as the Growler training (as is
the proposal for water-based activities), so using a questionable EA to continue the
process strikes me as, "Hurry up and push to the next stage before the public wises up to
what was wrong with the first one." Again, the only way to gain credibility is to go back
and conduct a full EIS on the EMF training, then (and only then)--maybe--move on to the
Growler proposal.
(b)(6)
3113
Seattle, WA 98103
The Navy is using "averaging" to make the noise impact level seem lower, and this is
plainly and obviously wrong. People are experiencing pain from the noise levels which
even below maximum are capable of causing hearing loss, and this cannot be wiped out
by "time averaging" it. Why is the Navy using this obviously inappropriate method? The
EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements including Sound
(b)(6)
3114

I have lived on the south end of Lopez for 22 years. I have also operated a business, a
restaurant, in Lopez Village for 18 years. Over these years, the noise and disruption from
NAS Whidbey Island, specifically from the Growlers, has increased from mild and
occasional to highly disruptive and frequent. The noise insinuates itself into every part of
my life at home and at work; it affects the health and well-being of my family, including
children and animals, and it directly affects my business, which is dependent on visitors
enjoying the outdoor environment here on the island. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012
Growler Environmental Assessments was inadequate to support the findings reached. In
the 2012 EAS, projected noise contours indicated that San Juan Co. is outside the
affected area. This is not true. The noise we experience here is very loud, unsettling, and
disruptive of many aspects of ordinary life. My family and my customers would agree.
Continuous sound measurements should be conducted in San Juan Co. over a lengthy
period to establish this truth. It is also important to include low frequency C weighted
sound measurements and analysis in the EIS, as these are also quite disturbing and
have a cumulative effect. The EIS should also incorporate supplemental noise
measurements including Sound Exposure Level and peak sound level (Lmax) in addition
to the Day-Night Average metric for assessing impacts. The projected annual number of
events that exceed 60 dBSEL and Lmax should be documented in 5db increments
throughout the impacted areas of San Juan Co. Sound measurements and analysis in
the EIS must also include afterburners, or the Navy should commit in the mitigation
section of the Record of Decision not to use afterburners in training flights.
(b)(6)
3115

I have owned property on the south end of Lopez since the early 1990's. We purchased
the property and placed conservation easements on the property because of the natural
beauty of the surroundings, The easements limit development of the property and help
preserve the rural and natural values that are quickly disappearing in the Puget Sound
area. I worked to guarantee protection of the BLM sites on the south end of Lopez,
Chadwick Hill/Point Colville/Iceberg Point. I was very proud when these areas became a
National Monument as I knew these beautiful lands would be preserved for future
generations to enjoy. But the natural beauty of these lands have substantially been
degraded by the increase in the frequency and intensity of noise from Navy Whidbey
operations. The EIS needs to consider the impact of its operation on the values of these
National Monument lands. In addition the EIS needs to consider the impact of the
National Wildlife Refuges, the National Historic Park on San Juan Island, and the various
state and local parks in the area. The health impact if people do not use these parks due
to the noise impact from Navy Whidbey also needs to be considered - the health of those
in the area as they must avoid exercising and being out in nature because of the noise
from Navy Whidbey. The EIS needs to consider the impact on the San Juans and
gateway cities' economy due to reduction in tourism because tourist will stop coming if
they are subjected to the noise levels we have recently experienced from Navy Whidbey
operations. Tourists come to the San Juans for the natural values. Constant pounding
noise coming from Navy Whidbey does not allow one to relax, to enjoy nature. This
impact on the tourism industry (jobs, taxes, etc) needs to be evaluated. The EIS needs to
consider the impact of reduction of property values (takings) due to the impact of the
noise from Navy Whidbey's operations. This impact is to the individual property owners
and also to the community as a whole (reduced tax collections), decreased new
construction as no one wants to live here given the noise, and county tax revenues from
sales/hotel/property taxes decreased due to the impact of the noise from Navy Whidbey's
operations. EIS needs to consider the noise impact on the animals and birds, land and
sea and air. This impact needs to extend to the larger ecosystem also. - The Navy should
over a several month period. When one realizes the number of days there is substantial
noise and the extensive numbers of times during a day when noise is heard and felt, then
one can have the proper data to understand the impact of Navy Whidbey's operation on
our daily lives. A one time reading, listing only the highest intensity reading does not
portray anything close to what we are experiencing. - The EIS should consider the
impacts of low frequency noise. This is absolutely needed. The windows rattling is a very
startling experience and it happens very often, not unusual for this to happen 50 times in
a 10 hour period. - The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition to daily
averages. When Growlers fly low the only thing one wants to do is cover one's ears and
get inside. It is nearly impossible to bear this noise, and it certainly is impossible to have
a conversation at those times much less concentrate. - The EIS should consider health
effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of Control, Sleep Disturbance and Impacts on Children
and students at Lopez School, Lopez Children's Center. Note that Lopez Schools use the
National Monument lands for field trips and are exposed to even more noise impact there
than at the school location. - The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that
bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Absolutely, there are much
more suitable locations for the Growlers and ones that provide adequate training
opportunities. - The EIS should evaluate noise mitigation measures such as minimize
flight routes over or near populated areas and to fly above 3,000 feet; deploy a Hush
House or Ground Run-up Enclosure; deploy noise suppression measures for the Growler
engines; notify citizens in advance of Growler training operations at Ault Field. EIS should
explore compensation to property owners, establishment of a health care fund to provide
for current and future health problems created by the noise from Navy Whidbey, and
mitigation compensation measures to the local community. - This EIS should conduct all
and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. EIS should
evaluate training alternatives and not rely upon the Navy's determination of what is
needed to provide training experiences. There needs to be included an independent
evaluation of training opportunities. The Navy's statement should not be considered
definitive. Other opinions need to be included. EIS needs to consider alternate routes and
flight paths that can substantially reduce the noise impact. For instance, trainings and
turns out past the Straits in the open ocean would reduce the noise impact on many
communities. The EIS should consider the cultural impact to Native American tribal lands
and traditions.
3115
(b)(6)
3116

I have lived on the southern part of Lopez Island since 1973. The noise from NASWI has
become increasingly frequent and obtrusive where we live. The long, low, loud rumble is
the most bothersome at our place and degrades the quality of life in our formerly quiet
rural location. Area #1 Analysis Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental
(EIS). I request that the Navy: Conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern
portion of SJC over a one-month period. Include C Weighted sound measurements and
analysis in the EIS. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise
measurements including Sound Exposure Level (LCE) and Peak Sound Level (LCPeak)
in addition to Ldn. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights over North Puget Sound.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3117

the most bothersome aspect at our place and degrades the quality of life in our formerly
quiet rural location. Area #3 Loss of Control The EIS should address the issue of Loss of
operations at Ault Field including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP), Controlled
Lopez
Island, WA 98261
(b)(6)
3118

quiet rural location. Area #5 Sleep Disturbance The EIS should address sleep
should document the extent of this problem. An action alternative that removes FCLP and
Approach practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed
and studied. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
.
My husband and I have lived on Lopez Island for 32 years and have lived comfortably
with the sporadic jet noise from NAS Whidbey Island. . . . .until NOW!! Since the Growlers
started flying, this has changed for the worse. Our quality of life has been impacted in a
negative way. I am deeply concerned about what the noise and vibrations AND air
pollution are doing to the environment. Specifically the low rumble from the stationary
engine run-ups. In different situations, I've been able to hear the low rumble (from the
stationary engine run-ups) as background noise ~ but what is bothersome and unsettling
is the FEELING I get when the rumble is present. I feel it internally and can not help but
believe that it is unhealthy. My heart rate seems to increase in intensity and if it lasts
more than a few minutes I start to feel anxious. I ask that you to study the effects of this
low-level rumble on both humans and animals/mammals. How does this "internalizing"
affect the health, quality of life and life expectancy? What will it do, in the long term, to
wildlife population? Please know that this new level of activity and training and the
increase in noise and pollution has a major negative impact on your neighbors, on the
wildlife and on the environment. (b)(6)
Lopez Island
3119
(b)(6)
3120

I live on the north end of Lopez Island, an area that is purportedly outside of the fly zone
of Whidbey jets. Nevertheless, I notice jets flying directly overhead frequently, with many
so loud that it is impossible to have a conversation. I work as a consultant to the World
Bank and frequently had my international consulting calls interrupted by the roar of
Whidbey NAS jets. - The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in all of
San Juan County over a three-month period. - The EIS should consider the economic
impacts of NAS jet noise on San Juan country residents based on a large-n sample
(1000+ participants) interview survey. - The EIS should include peak noise levels in
addition to daily averages -- clearly daily averages are not the problem, the problem is
loud intermittent noise. - This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and
should not rely on, or tier off of, the deficient analysis and Records of Decision for the
(b)(6)
3121
Lopez, WA 98261
My husband and I have lived on Lopez for 32 years and have had no complaints about
the jet noise from NAS Whidbey Island. . . until NOW! The jet noise from the new Growler
aircraft is unbearable. I ask that you study the impact of these unnaturally loud noises on
humans and wildlife. Look at the impact on health, quality of life and life expectancy on
humans and wildlife. I also ask that the engines on the Growlers be modified to produce
less noise. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3122

quiet rural location. Area #6 Alternatives I do not understand why this EIS does not
include an Alternative that would base Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. Section
as efficient. Adding any Growlers to an already significantly affected area is unjustified.
There are other possibilities where Growler training and basing can happen. The EIS
than NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3123

I have lived on the southern part of Lopez Island since 1973. In the early days we were
aware of the base, but it did not intrude on our lives. The noise from NASWI has become
increasingly frequent and intrusive where we live. The long, low, loud rumble is the most
distressing aspect at our place and degrades the quality of life in our formerly quiet rural
location. Area #7 Mitigation I believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments
timelines for completion. g) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whidbey Island should
possible. h) Growler training flights over populated areas including San Juan County
should be above 3,000 feet elevation. i) Afterburners should not be used on Growler
training flights over North Puget Sound. j) A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House
testing. k) Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric
F414 engines used on the Growlers. l) Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training
Lopez
Island, WA 98261
(b)(6)
3124

location. Area #8 Economic Impacts Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let
alone increasing the number of jets, will have severe economic effects on San Juan
County. It will discourage visitors and reduce property values. The EIS should address
3125
,
My husband and I have lived on Lopez Island for 32 years and have had no complaints
about the occasional jet noise from NAS Whidbey Island until the arrival of the Growler
jets. The pollution that is being created from flying the jets in relatively concentrated
areas is more than we've ever had to live with before. I ask that you study the impact of
the jet fuel to our environment. What will it do to the health, quality of life, both short and
long term?? How does the jet noise affect the health, quality of life, life expectancy and
population of our wildlife? What will it do, all of this excess jet fuel, to the Salish Sea and
the marine life?? What will it do, to the quality of our soil and ground water? I ask that you
study all that affects me, my family, my community and everyone's environment.
Respectfully, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3126

location. Area #9 Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments I have
been following the EIS process. It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012
(b)(6)
3127

This areas primary concern is nature and preserving it in all it's beauty. Your project will
deter that goal. Thanks,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3128
Nordland, WA 98358
As a health care professional working in mental health particularly, I am concerned about
the noise pollution that these growlers create and the impact on humanity and animal
populations as well which are to my knowledge unmeasured at this time. Please consider
these important impacts and redesign capabilities for lowering noise impact on both the
human and natural environments.
(b)(6)
3129
Victoria, BC CANADA, WA V8S 3G7

The loud low rumbling of the EA-18G Growlers at NAS Whidbey Island can be heard
from as far away as my home here in Victoria, BC Canada. The disturbing noise is
increasingly loud and an affront to our peace and quiet, particulary during the evenings.
Please remember that military actions at Whidbey go well beyond U.S. and Washington
State borders. (This may be news to you because this comment form required me to
enter a U.S. state!)
(b)(6)
3130
nordland, WA 98358
The noise impact of increased growlers will be substantial over east Jefferson County
and must be included in the EIS for this project
(b)(6)
3131

I moved to the the south end of Lopez island in 2001 when the peace and quiet in our
home was only occasionally disrupted by Navy jet noise. Then the growlers arrived
bringing terrifying noise that disrupts my sleep and cause a constant state of anxiety. The
ground tests rattle our windows and cause enough vibration to shake things off of
shelves. Please, my tax dollars are paying for this but I am helpless to stop it. Please
perform new tests for noise and vibration on Lopez. The San Juan islands are NOT a
"low impact location". Our health is being compromised. Please consider the people who
live here.
(b)(6)
3132
Victoria, WA 98040
NB Have had to use a relative's zip code to get this to submit even though I just heard on
our local radio station that Canadians may comment.I live in Saanich,BC, a suburb of
Victoria. This last week in particular has been very disturbing for many in our community
as the frequency and intensity of noise events is becoming totally unacceptable. Even
inside a house with double windows and closed doors it is sufficient to disturb sleep and
even conversation at times. It is outrageous that we are becoming collateral damage in
these operations
(b)(6)
3133

The ROAR, RUMBLE, and VIBRATION from NASWI this week (January 5-8, 2015) has
been destructive. I have had to leave my home because my house was shuddering from
the effect, and I was startled every 3-4 minutes by a blast. I could not continue my work
(research and writing). The EIS must study the San Juan Islands as an area of
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The blasts from NASWI Growler jet engines is horrific. This used
to be a quiet place. The introduction of the Growlers has changed the environment
500%..negatively. The EIS needs to study noise levels of the actual noise at moments in
time during the day and evening. Daily averaging does not provide an adequate picture. I
feel the noise and vibration when it happens, not as an average.
(b)(6)
3134

I live on Lopez Island. The impact of the NASWI Growler noise has had a destructive
effect on my life. It used to be quiet here. Now I have to leave my home in order to avoid
the bone-rattling effect of the Growlers' jet engine noise. I want the EIS to study the C
Weighted noise factors of the Growlers'noise, the factors that cause vibrations that run
through my home and my body. I do not want that measurement to be averaged. I want
sound measurements that reflect actual events.
(b)(6)
3135

I live on Lopez island. I am concerned about my health. During the week of January 5-8,
2015, the noise and vibrations have been almost constant in the day and evening. I
measure my blood pressure at home. My blood pressure has jumped up this week. My
heart pounds as I am startled by the noise and vibrations which seem to happen every
3-5 minutes. The EIS needs to study the health effects of Growler noise and vibration.
(b)(6)
3136
Victoria, B.C., V8Y 1R4

My wife and I own a farm in Saanich, B.C. on Vancouver Island. The Growler noise is a
constant irritant that takes away our peaceful setting here. Surely in 2015 engineers can
figure out the acoustic aerodynamics so that we citizens are not subjected to this noise.
And now you want to add more jets? No Way!
(b)(6)
3137

I live on Lopez Island. I purchased my property in 1992.My property value is about half a
million. Due to the constant noise and vibration of the Growlers I can see that I will have
difficulty selling my home and receiving value. Who would want to buy a home that
vibrates to the Growler jet engine noise? Who would want to buy a home where you
cannot be outside without ear protection - ear protection that is nowhere near sufficient to
block the shrieking and roaring of jets overhead? The advent of the growlers has
diminished my home's value. I want the EIS to study the ECONOMIC IMPACTS of the
Growler activity over Lopez island.
(b)(6)
3138

I live on Lopez Island. I no longer invite friends and family to visit me on Lopez since I am
unable to be assured that they would have a pleasant visit. The noise and vibrations of
the Growlers send shudders through my home, often all day and into the night. Sitting
outside in the garden or on the deck is impossible when the Growlers are being tested or
flying. I know of at least two visitors to this island who thought they would purchase
property here on Lopez but have changed their minds due to Growler noise. I want the
EIS to study the ECONOMIC IMPACT on Lopez Island of the Growlers.
(b)(6)
3139
Santa Fe, NM 87505

ATTN:CODE EV21/SS Dear Sirs: I feel bad for you authorities who follow orders,
because you above most citizens have "no need to know." I hope you have time and
energy to ask some PERSONAL questions about this "Pacific Northwest Electronic
Warfare Range." "What's it for? Whom does it serve? What is the SOURCE of the need?
Who's really in charge? What are the long term side effects of such Electronic Warfare?
Who are we fighting: Earthlings or ET's? Am I being used?" Of course, I am opposed to
such a Warfare Practice Range primarily because such use of Radio Frequencies and
EMF destroy the DNA of ALL living beings. Are you truly interested in destroying ALL
LIVING BEINGS in the Pacific/Northwest, or are you being USED to further some agenda
that you oppose in your heart of hearts? IMO, military people, like all citizens, HAVE A
NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH. We civilians are often in a dangerous position because
we must depend on highly qualified military personnel to DO THE RIGHT THING. Please
choose PLANETARY LIFE over all other agendas. The name of the game is 'SURVIVAL.'
Sincerely,(b)(6)
Former Navy Wife
(b)(6)
3140

The noise and vibrations on Lopez island, where I live, during the week of January 5-8,
2015 have been horrific, and not unlike most days in 2014 and 2013. I want the EIS to
study and recommend ALTERNATIVES to the location of the Growlers. I want the EIS to
provide a list of other locations where the Growlers could be stationed, and the capacity
to move the Growlers to those locations. The Puget Sound area has grown in population
since the days when NASWI flew jets and tested engines. There is now significant impact
on a larger population of residents and tourists than before. The growlers are negatively
affecting our environment. The island communities are no longer appropriate places to
whiplash the environment with their noise.
(b)(6)
3141

Please conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a
(b)(6)
3142

I live on Lopez Island and I am subject to the steady noise and vibration from NASWI
Growlers. I live 14 miles from the airfield and the impact seems that they are next door. I
have spent significant amounts of time very near major international airports, and the
noise of those facilities is NOTHING like what the impact is here. That is because they
have noise limitations. I want the EIS to study NOISE MITIGATION strategies and require
such installations at NASWI. NOISE mitigation needs to apply to engine testing as well as
all jet flights.
(b)(6)
3143

I live on Lopez Island where I expect to reside in peace without being subjected to noise
tactics intended to intimidate and annoy enemies of the State. Analysis in the 2005 and
2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was inadequate to support the findings.
The Navy must enhance the analysis in order to support proposed actions in the
and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan
County.Quiet Skies Over San Juan County 3 06 December 2014 Reference: Mestre, V.,
et. al,: Technical Support For Day/Night Average Sound Level (Dnl) Replacement Metric
Research, Final Report, 14 June 2011, Section 6.1, last paragraph. D. We understand
that noise measurements and projections in the EAs assume that afterburners are not in
use. We understand that afterburners are used at times including takeoffs and FCLPs.
Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or the Navy
(b)(6)
3144

I live 14 miles from the airfield at NASWI, on Lopez Island. I object to low-flying Growler
jets over my home. The prolonged shrieking and roaring of those jets penetrates my
home and make being outside in the yard impossible. I want the EIS to study strategies
for jet flights away from the San Juan Islands, and at altitude higher than 300 feet.
(b)(6)
3145

tactics intended to intimidate and annoy enemies of the State. Health Effects Related to
Startle Reaction from Growler Training San Juan County has a low background noise of
35 45 dBA (outside). County residents are routinely exposed 90 114 dBA (outside)
blasts of noise from Growler over flights and operations at Ault Field resulting in startle
to repeated noise at this level. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and
Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity.
(b)(6)
3146

tactics intended to intimidate and annoy enemies of the State. Health Effects Related to
Loss of Control Residents of San Juan County experience Growler jet noise at all times
of the day and night. The noise ranges from 65 110 dBA and 75 124 dBC (inside) and
is the result of over flights, engine testing and training operations. Naval Air Station
Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of training operations for Ault Field. As a
booms on rural Americans.Quiet Skies Over San Juan County 4 06 December 2014
(b)(6)
3147

tactics intended to intimidate and annoy enemies of the State. Health Effects of Jet Noise
on Children On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely fly over our school in the middle of
the island and over Lopez Village where our Preschool and Childrens Center is located.
(b)(6)
3148

I am concerned about the noise from Growler jets flying over the Olympic peninsula and
its effect on people, wildlife and the tourist oriented economy of this region. Please send
me information on the expected noise levels in db emitted by Growlers during training
over the Olympic peninsula so I can make an assessment of their noise impact. These
noise levels should be given both for a) Clear weather, and b) Cloudy weather. The noise
levels should also be given for a) Human audio frequencies, and b) Higher frequencies
that would impact wildlife. Please also send information on the estimated number of
Growler training flights over the Olympic peninsula each day. Thank you for letting the
public be involved in this assessment.
(b)(6)
3149

tactics intended to intimidate and annoy enemies of the State. Health Effects Due to
Sleep Disturbance San Juan County residents regularly experience Growler jet noise
between the hours of 8 pm and 12 midnight. During the summer the noise often
continues to 1 am. The indoor threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. San Juan County
residents noise journals show that indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field range
from 57 80 dBA. If the low frequency noise is measured the sound levels range from 77
100 dBC. Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Using the
Day-Night Average (Ldn) noise Quiet Skies Over San Juan County 5 06 December 2014
measure does not take into account that our bodies do not average sleep loss. Noise
annoyance during the night increases noise annoyance for the following 24 hours. Noise
convalescence from illness. Low frequency sound, such as the Growler emits, is
significantly disturbing even at low sound pressure levels. References: LeVere T, Morlock
G, Hart, F: Waking Performance Decrements Following Minimal Sleep Description: The
(b)(6)
3150

tactics intended to intimidate and annoy enemies of the State. Alternatives The Proposed
Action Statement in the EIS States: The alternatives include variations of the following
factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to be purchased 2. Number of aircraft assigned per
squadron 3. Number of land-based squadrons. 4. The distribution of aircraft operations at
NAS Whidbey Island between Ault Field and OLF Coupeville There are no alternatives
that base the Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Section 1500.14 of
Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives . We believe
efficient. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a
location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
3151

tactics intended to intimidate and annoy enemies of the State. Mitigation We want the
Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training
flights on citizens including San Juan County. In preparing an Environmental Impact
mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. We
believe that the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly determined that
there was no adverse noise impact. Therefore it was inappropriate not to evaluate noise
mitigation. At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully considered. All
with timelines for completion. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island
populated areas including the south end of Lopez Island to the greatest extent possible.
b) Growler training flights over populated areas including San Juan County should be
above 3,000 feet elevation. c) Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights
over North Puget Sound. d) A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used
for noise suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. e) Test,
acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric F414 engines used
on the Growlers. f) Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either
airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP), Controlled Carrier Approaches
(CCAs).
(b)(6)
3152

tactics intended to intimidate and annoy enemies of the State. Economic Impacts The
San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of peace.... We
increasing the number of jets, will discourage visitors and reduce property values. Not
including Alternatives that base additional jets at other locations due to higher costs to
the Navy does not consider the broader economic consequences for the region. The EIS
Island Counties.
(b)(6)
3153

tactics intended to intimidate and annoy enemies of the State. Insufficiency of the 2005
and 2012 Environmental Assessments The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments
(EAs) are deficient in the following areas as noted in numerous comments. Analysis
Human health consequences Alternatives Mitigation Economic consequences This EIS
(b)(6)
3154
Sequim, WA 98382
We live on the Miller Peninsula on the North Olympic Peninsula, in eastern Clallam
County. Our property is located south of Highway 101, and on this very foggy day in
January, hourly we are hearing the Navy Growler jets overhead. It is abhorrent to us to
think that the current number of EA-18A Growler jets in the NASWI fleet could be
increased by 36! We are awakened by the rumblings (growls!) of the jets at night. These
are unexpected and very undesirable occurrences that we were totally unprepared for
when we purchased this property five years ago. We have been actively following the
Navys plans for maneuvering war weapons on the North Olympic Peninsula. We are
extremely concerned that the issues have been so separated that they now require three
different comment periods. Is it the Navys intent to separate these issues so that they
become trivial as compared to the complete design when all aspects are implemented?
In November, the public was allowed to submit comments to the Forest Service about
permitting use of Forest Service lands for 15 mobile and one permanent electromagnetic
emitter. There is no purpose to these emitters without some kind of overhead aircraft to
identify the targets. Now, we have a date of January 9, 2015 in which to submit
comments about the proposed addition of 36 more Growlers and yet another date in
February on which to comment about sonobuoys off the Pacific Coast. We want you to
understand that the public is not unaware of these tactics and will seek to bring this
trifurcation of the issue into one consolidated, open and comprehensible plan. To that
end, and in response to this comment period, I would like to point out that at page 3.6-18
of the EIS, it says, The training activities involving aircraft in the Olympic MOAs
evaluated in this EIS/OEIS are similar to the training evaluated in the NWTRC EIS. The
Record of Decision for this document is October 2010. Since Electronic Combat training
in the Olympic MOAs was not evaluated in the NWTRC EIS and has yet to be evaluated
in the NWTT, the Navy must evaluate the impacts of Growlers both in the area between
Whidbey Island and the proposed EWR, and in the area of the EWR and the proposed
EWR, with the same level of precision and exactitude it evaluates the impacts of the
Growlers in the Whidbey Island area. The population, biology and geography of these
two areas are distinctly unique and such justification for one cannot become the
camouflage for the other. Therefore, we are calling for a complete Scoping evaluation to
be conducted by the Navy, including further opportunity for public comment. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
. Sequim, WA 98382
(b)(6)
3155
Newburyport, MA 01950
Whidbey Island has much to offer as a place to call home. Anyone who wants to relocate
to the area can make a choice to live with the Growlers touch-down and take-off noise or
live somewhere else. Anyone, that is, who doesnt rely on a service dog. Due to my
physical disability, I need a service dog. The dog is trained to assist me with daily
activities such as walking, going out for groceries, yard work, picking up my son at
school. If my dog cant hear my commands throughout the day, he cant help me move
through my day. The jet practice discriminates against me and anyone else in the
category of disabled people with service animals because it removes the choice of living
with the noise. We cant choose to call Whidbey home. Its not an option.
(b)(6)
3156
Victoria, BC Canada, WA V8S3J2

The increase in noise levels over Victoria as a result of the new Growler jets has become
a significant concern, and I live near the coast facing Port Angeles, not Whidbey Island.
And for the first time, the vibrations were felt at the hospital where I work (BC Cancer
Agency, Vancouver Island Centre), nearly 2 miles from the coast. In addition the
frequency of these incidents has increased dramatically. If the number of jets increases,
they will constitute a health hazard. The existence of such excessive noise and vibration
from a foreign country is essentially a hostile action. If the jet manufacturers cannot be
forced to make changes to reduce the noise to reasonable levels, then the Navy will have
to change the way it operates the jets. If the current noise and vibration is deemed
acceptable, I have to wonder what level would not be considered acceptable? Is there no
limit?
(b)(6)
3157

I live on the north end of Lopez and this past year it has become as if we live in a state of
siege just about every day. Stop. Please stop. My wife and I were talking about how we
don't want to live here any more. And more Growlers? This is insanity. Do you testing
over the Nevada desert or somewhere you are not ruining citizen's lives. You need to
seriously analyze the impact. If you do so you will cancel or move the program. San Juan
County has a low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside). County residents are
routinely exposed 90 114 dBA (outside) blasts of noise from Growler over flights and
operations at Ault Field resulting in startle reactions. This noise is perceived
We never know when or for how long these blasts and roars and rumbles were persist.
Unnerving. What about kids? children. Parents, teachers and children should be
questioned about behavioral responses to Growler noise. What about ruining sleep. You
need to assess that. Listen to your neighbors, please. If you continue, and I ask that you
please stop, but if you ignore all the feedback, then serious mitigation is required. Stay
away from Lopez and other populated areas, stay high, don't do your full thrust dirty
landing, with the gear down for miles ahead, do the hush house, redisng the planes to
make them quieter like they used to be (this is a new problem). Quantify the costs to the
economy. Loss of tourism, wuality of life, real estate values. Check it out. It's real. Do a
new, REAL EIS, and you will see why the program needs to be stopped or moved. You
cannot simultaneously protect and destroy citizen's lives. Thank you very much,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3158

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island since 1984. I currently work as a nurse in
the local medical clinic, and am aware of the significant impacts of noise pollution. In the
last year noise and over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything we
have experienced. All the reasons we have chosen to live here are being degraded by
San Juan County a no significant impact area. This is clearly false. I think it was
interesting that flights were suspended during the holiday season, presumably to present
a quiet picture to visitors and not to alleviate the impact on residents. - The Navy should
2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. We who live on Lopez Island forego many
of the conveniences of living on the mainland, and incur more expense. We choose
island life in spit of this because of the rural peace and quiet this lifestyle affords. When
Growlers "growl" my windows rattle, and inside my house I have to cover my ears. The
noise of operations definitely impacts my quality of life, and further studies and mitigation
need to be instituted.
(b)(6)
3159
Victoria , WA V8R 4A6

For more than 40 years my family has camped at Deception Pass so I am well aware of
the "Sounds of Freedom". Just lately we have been hearing the rumble here in our home.
It is a bit terrifying as it always makes me think it is the start of an earthquake! I am
distressed to hear that more "growlers" are scheduled for Whidby Island.We already have
reservations this summer at Deception Pass; I am concerned in view of the fact that the
activity may be ramping up. You need to know the impact these planes are having is
widespread! I had to enter a state to send this but I am in British Columbia, Canada
(b)(6)
3160
Victoria BC, WA V8N 1X5

We live in the Cadboro Bay area of Victoria, BC. By fluke, today (Jan 9, 2015) we found
out that as Canadians we are not excluded from making comments on the proposal.
Environmental impacts do not respect international boundaries, and if you are not already
aware, people here are affected by the Growler activities. For several years, the noise
has woken us at night, disturbed us during the day, and regularly shakes the window
frames in our house. We live between 50-60 km from the Whidbey Island base. In your
deliberations, we trust that you will not confine your consideration of the effects only to
Americans and American property. Clearly, the noise effects are widespread, affecting
your respectful Canadian neighbours.
(b)(6)
3161
Sequim, WA 98382
The sound pollution from the growlers is disrupting my quality of life at my recently
purchased home because I bought here to get away from man-made noise and light
pollution at night. Gordon Hempton, a sound recordist and acoustic ecologist from
Washington, campaigns for the preservation of natural silence, which is as necessary
and essential as species preservation, habitat restoration, toxic waste cleanup, and
carbon dioxide reduction. True freedom from artificial sounds is surprisingly hard to
achieve... Hempton has named a niche that is free from aircraft noise as One Square
Inch of Silence and says the Hoh Rainforest is the quietest place in the United States.
We do not speak of a complete absence of sound but freedom from man-made noise.
The growler planes are ruining this quietest place in the U.S. Of course the sound
pollution is not limited to the area surrounding the Whidbey Island Naval Air Base, the
planes have to come and go. The lower frequency noise that the growlers put out is
pervasive - it sounds like it's coming from within my neighborhood and is awful. Military
operations like this are a bane of mankind and should be limited in their pollution scope
instead of growing and spreading. We should be leading the world in pollution reduction
and innovation of unification strategies for our species in the responsible and rational use
of our planet.
(b)(6)
3162

I live on Lopez island. It is 8:43 am and the roar and vibration from NASWI has already
started. Thus begins the 5th day of horrific noise and vibration from NASWI. I have to
leave my home in order to have any sort of coherent thoughts. I want the EIS to study
RE-LOCATION of the Growlers. I want to see a list of alternative locations and strategies
for re-locating the growlers. The growlers have ruined life here on the islands. I have
owned property here since 1992, and the growlers have negatively altered this
environment without any regard to the health, economic and lifestyle impacts.
(b)(6)
3163

As I write this, my house is vibrating from Growler jet engine noise, rumble roar and
vibration. 9:26am. Lopez island. I want the EIS to study the effects of the GROWLER
engine testing and take-off on nearby islands, where the sea/water environment appears
to facilitate the distance the roar and vibration travel. I want the EIS to measure noise and
vibration on Lopez island.
(b)(6)
3164
lopez, WA 98261
Historically,Whale hunting and Fishing were a big part of Island economy, Now the fish
are gone. How is the navy protecting our natural resources by blanketing the Salish Sea
with polluted stormwater run off, acidified air and total sound saturation. What effects is
the navy jet noise, air, and water pollution have on the marine ecosystem?
(b)(6)
3165
,
I am a resident of Lopez Island, Wa. Please refer to the information below in determining
the scope of this EIS. This information was originally compiled in a letter to the San Juan
County Council which I helped to draft. The Navy's 2013 Scoping Brochure states that
the Growler "is recognizable by the low frequency rumble of its jet engines." The Wyle
Report was used by the Navy in its 2012 Environmental Assessment and explains that
"the metrics used to describe aircraft noise in this study are presented in terms of
A-weighted decibels, which de-emphasizes low-frequency noise. The primary purpose of
the Wile Report was to present the results of the noise analysis for the proposed
transition of three EA-6B Prowler squadrons to EA-18G Growler aircraft and addition of
one reserve EA-18G squadron at NAS Whidbey. A low frequency noise report to the
Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise of which the US Department of
Defense is a member states: "A-weighting function is not designed to evaluate noise that
contains significant low-frequency content. (PARTNER report.) A review of published
research on "Low Frequency Noise and its Effects" supports the experience of San Juan
County residents that low frequency noise causes extreme distress to a number of
people who are sensitive to its effects (Leventhall, 2003) Leventhall's findings include: 1.
"Since A-weighting underestimates the sound pressure level of noise with low frequency
components, a better assessment of health effects would e to use c-weighting." 2. "It
should be noted that a large proportion of low frequency components in a noise ay
increase considerable the adverse effects on health." 3. "The evidence on low frequency
noise is sufficiently strong to warrant immediate concern." The Wyle Report states that
A-weighted metrics are designed to "approximate the response and sensitivity of the
human ear." The PARTNER Report makes clear that while A-weighting may be a good
measure of loudness, C-weighted metrics are a better measure of low frequency effects,
including vibration. Humans are rattled by the sound of Growlers in the same way glass
windows are. Vibration and "rattling" are low frequency sound effects. The organ most
sensitive to vibration is not the human ear, it is the body. Metrics that de-emphasize
low-frequency noise are bound to de-emphasize (or make altogether invisible) any health
impacts not directly related to extremely high decibel levels and potential hearing loss.
A-weighted data is pertinent to the situation at OLF where extreme loudness is an
undeniable factor, but for those of us living in San Juan County, impacts from high
decibel levers of over flights are only part of the picture. Impacts that result from the
sustained hours of low frequency plus high frequency noise generated in FCLP"s CCA's
and Run-ups emitted by the EA 18-G Growlers have definite adverse physiological
effects. The Navy's exclusive use of A-weighted dB noise metrics in the 2012 EA so
narrowed the scope of its study as to make it completely inadequate to address human
health impacts from operation of the EA-18G Growler. The Navy failed to use "best
available science" in the determination of Environmental Impacts from the Growler. If the
Navy and the Wyle Corporation fail once again to incorporate noise metrics that are
appropriate for the analysis of the low-frequency sound signature of this aircraft we can
assume that the results of the current EIS will again be skewed in the direction of a
finding of "no significant impact." A valid EIS must include appropriate sound metrics and
improved noise modeling, so that the impacts felt over a broader geographical area than
that covered in the previous Environmental Assessment will be addressed.
(b)(6)
3166
,
While we acknowledge and thank the US Navy for the work they do in protecting our
countries, Citizens of British Columbia, including our family, are concerned by the
unacceptably high decibel noise levels coming from the U.S. Navys Growler jets from
Whidbey Island. The noise from the existing 82 Growler jets is already very stressful to
humans and animals alike, and now you are considering adding another 36 fighter jets to
the fleet. Research has shown that in some cases noise at the proposed levels of greater
than 84 decibels can be deadly to wildlife, including marine mammals. Disturbing noise
from the Growlers is often heard both day and night on the mainland and islands of
British Columbia, Canada, and constitutes a disturbance of the peace. Another issue
related to this project involves the Growler jets dumping fuel containing heavy metals and
other toxic compounds over the Salish Sea. For your interest, following is a link to an
article which appears on the Victoria Times Colonist website 9 January 2015; it succinctly
summarises the noise issues relating to the US Navy project from a British Columbian
perspective.
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/jack-knox-the-rumbles-are-rising-grab-your-earp
lugs-1.1723867 (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3167
Lopez, WA 98261
These loud jets are extremely affective! They vibrate my own body, make me stop
working for the duration of fly overs so that I can cover my ears because of the pain - no
exaggeration. That alone is huge but I've seen children freak out and cry, I've had water
glasses move around on counter tops and dogs whimper.... It'd be really great if these
jets were not so loud...better mufflers please!!! I just hope yall do a thorough job with your
EIS that is respectful of those of us who are pursuing happiness in the fly zones. We are
the people... Thank you
(b)(6)
3168
Victoria, WA V9E 1L7

I live in Victoria, BC. I've been hearing "the rumbles" over Victoria and area for several
years, and at times they are very loud and frequent. Sometimes they are so loud I cannot
hear my TV. On Jan. 6 2015 there were dozens throughout the evening - I noted 13 in 30
minutes. They disturb my work and rest, cause anxiety and restlessness. I hear them
now as I write this! Please stop!
(b)(6)
3169
Victoria, WA 22222
Please note that my country is CANADA and my province is BC and my postal code is
V8R 2M8. The fact that there is no option on your form to inform you that I live in Canada
indicates the ignorance of the Environmental Impact Statement.. The rumbling sounds do
not stop at the border, and they are driving me crazy. STOP the insanity. You are
effecting my family, my work, my neighbours, my community, and every community
nearby. Do NOT expand your growler program. MOVE the entire program to somewhere
where nobody lives. The disruption to our environment is real and disturbing and
completely unfair. Your responsibility is to STOP THIS INSANITY. You are destroying the
very thing you set out to protect: Freedom and peace.
(b)(6)
3170
Victoria, BC,Canada, WA V8R 3B3

I am very concerned about the proposed expansion of flights from the Whidbey Island
Base. As a resident of Victoria living approximately 5-6 blocks. My husband and I are
increasingly disturbed by the loud low grumbling noise similar to an earthquake that is
associated with these planes flying. While the area we live in would otherwise be very
quiet, increasing activity from these planes may require us to move as my husband is
very sensitive to noise due to a traumatic brain injury. I would hope that this feedback will
be considered in the future planning for your fleet expansion.
(b)(6)
3171
Nordland, WA 98358
I am very opposed to the noise and disruption to our lives caused by Growler operations
and practice. Whidbey Island is not the place to have this.
(b)(6)
3172

Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island Protect the Peninsula's Future
(PPF) is a non-profit, public benefit corporation registered in Washington State since
1973. I am on the Board of Directors of PPF, and I have been designated as its EWR
Lead. Many of our members live, work, recreate, hike, fish, or travel in areas of Olympic
National Park, Olympic National Forest, and Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Island,
and San Juan Counties that will be adversely affected by any increase in the number of
EA-18G Growler Aircraft at NASWI. These members are already being adversely
affected by the current number of EA-18Gs at NASWI, the impacts of which have not
been sufficiently evaluated in any environmental document. PPF has grave concerns that
the scope of the EIS as described in the Fall 2014 A Guide to the Scoping Meeting (for
the subject EIS) is much too limited to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). That act requires all federal agencies to prepare an EIS whenever they
functionally related must be included. The geographic area proposed to be covered by
the EIS is limited to the Whidbey Island area generally, and to landings, takeoffs, and
touch and go training at Ault and OLF fields. In this regard, a diagram on the left side of
the Growler Operations page of the Scoping Meeting Guide is most telling. That
diagram includes three flight paths that extend to the southwest of the area shown as
follows: Those flight paths, we are sure, lead to the Navys proposed Pacific Northwest
Electronic Warfare Range (EWR). The impacts of the Gowlers on those flight paths do
not end at the boundaries of the Navys diagram. The impacts extend as far as the
Growlers fly. Under NEPA those impacts must be evaluated in the EIS both in the area
between Whidbey Island and the proposed EWR, and in the area of the proposed EWR.
Because that was not done in the Navys Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed EWR, it should be done now. This is also necessary under the 1988 Master
Agreement between the Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture.
That Master Agreement requires the Forest Service to study both the impacts of the
proposed land-based training activities and the impacts of the proposed use of airspace if
directly associated with the land based training. We are mindful that the Navys EA for
the EWR states at Page 2-8: All of the EW training activities and locations that would be
neither underlined statement is accurate. That the NWTRC EIS does not evaluate the
activities contemplated by the proposed EWR is apparent from the following tables: Table
3.2-2 lists the emission sources for all training activities evaluated by the NWTRC EIS.
The only emission sources listed for Electronic Combat are from aircraft and ships or
boats. There are no emission sources listed for ground based mobile emitters. Had the
activities contemplated by the proposed EWR been evaluated by the NWTRC EIS, the
ground based mobile emitters should have been listed here as an emission source. Table
3.3-8 lists, by activity and training area, the stressors and hazardous materials that would
be associated with the activities evaluated by the NWTRC EIS. For Electronic Combat
the only areas listed are the Darrington Area and W-237. Had the activities contemplated
by the proposed EWR been evaluated by the NWTRC EIS, the Olympic MOAs should
have been listed here as a training area. Table 3.16-1 lists by Range and Training Site,
the training environment and the type of training activity covered by the NWTRC EIS. For
proposed EWR been evaluated by the NWTRC EIS, the Olympic MOAs should have
been listed here as a training area. Table 3.16-2 lists by warfare type the area in which it
would be conducted. For Electronic Combat the only areas listed are W-237a and the
Darrington Area. Had the activities contemplated by the proposed EWR been evaluated
by the NWTRC EIS, the Olympic MOAs would should have been listed here as a training
area. That the NWTT EIS did not evaluate the activities contemplated by the proposed
EWR is apparent from the following statements: At Page 2-3 it says The land resources
affected by the use of the Olympic MOAs A and B will be evaluated as they are directly
impacted by overflights for at-sea activities. To emphasize the obvious, only overflights
of the MOAs for training at sea was contemplated in the NWTT EIS. No mention is made
of impacts on the Olympic MOAs from Electronic Combat training there. At Page 3.6-18 it
says The training activities involving aircraft in the Olympic MOAs evaluated in this
EIS/OEIS are similar to the training evaluated in the NWTRC EIS. With Electronic
Combat training in the Olympic MOAs not having been evaluated in the NWTRC EIS, this
sentence demonstrates it was not evaluated in the NWTT EIS either. PPF expects the
Navy in the proposed EIS to evaluate the impacts of the Growlers, both in the area
between Whidbey Island and the proposed EWR, and in the area of the proposed EWR,
with the same intensity and specificity it evaluates the impacts of the Growlers in the
Whidbey Island area. In this regard, a diagram on the right side of the Growler
the flight paths of Growlers using the OLF for Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP). A
copy is shown below. It is commendable that the Navy has gone to such extents to study
the impacts of the 36 new Growlers at OLF. However, the same detailed portrayal of
flight paths of Growlers going to and returning from, and using, the proposed EWR, is
essential for a proper evaluation of the impacts in those locations. Because there are
15mobile emitter sites in the proposed EWR, and one fixed emitter site, there are
essentially 16 OLFs in the proposed EWR. A detailed portrayal of flight paths for each of
the 16 proposed emitter sites is needed. The same is true of every possible flight path to
and from the proposed EWR. With neither the NWTRC EIS nor the NWTT EIS having
evaluated Electronic Combat in the Olympic MOAs, or aircraft flights in the area between
Whidbey Island and those MOAs, the impacts of the 82 or so Growlers currently at
NASWI, as well as the proposed 36 new Growlers, must now be evaluated in the
proposed EIS. Prior to preparing an EIS as suggested above, the Navy should consider
that the Master Agreement referred to above authorized military use of National Forest
lands only if that use is compatible with other uses and in conformity with applicable
forest plans, provided the Department of Defense determines and substantiates that
lands under its administration are unsuitable or unavailable. NASWI is already
conducting electronic warfare training at several Department of Defense bases in the
Northwest that include restricted airspace and nearly half a million acres of land. Only
one, the Fallon Training Range Complex, is mentioned, in a single paragraph on page
3172
2-9 of the EA for the proposed EWR. This does not qualify as the kind of determination
and substantiation required by the Master Agreement. Also, Capt. Michael Nortier, the
commanding officer at NASWI, stated in a Commentary in the Peninsula Daily News on
December 26, 2014, that The armed services have decades of experience successfully
electronic warfare range. Consequently, no mobile emitter sites in Olympic National
Forest can be used for the proposed EWR. In the proposed EIS, the Navy must also
consider the impacts related to both parts of Electronic Combat Electronic Surveillance
and Electronic Attack. In the informational meetings held in Forks and Port Angeles to
explain the proposed EWR, the Navy repeatedly stressed that training for Electronic
Attack would not take place in the proposed EWR. Capt. Michael Nortier said the same in
the Commentary mentioned above. The official documents say otherwise. Specifically:
Section 2.1.2 of the EA for the proposed EWR, says The activities of the Proposed
Action center on two divisions of EW, known as electronic warfare support (ES) and
electronic attack (EA); Section 1.3 of the EA for the proposed EWR, and the related
Forest Service and Navy FONSIs, say The purpose of the Proposed Action is to
maximize the ability of local units to achieve their training requirements on local ranges;
Section 4.2.1.3 of the EA for the proposed EWR says The Wings mission is to support
U.S. Naval Air Forces and the Unified Command Structure by providing combatready
Tactical Electronic Attack squadrons which are fully trained, properly manned,
interoperable, wellmaintained, and supported; The Proposed Action section of the Fall
2014 A Guide to the Scoping Meeting (for the subject EIS) says The Navy is proposing
to increase electronic attack (VAQ) capabilities by adding up to 36 aircraft to support an
expanded VAQ mission and training at NAS Whidbey Island; and The VAQ Mission and
Training section of the above mentioned Guide says The missions of the VAQ
squadrons include electronic surveillance and attack against enemy radar and
communications systems. This involves the use of jamming equipment and anti-radiation
missiles. The Growler has an advanced electronic system that allows it to identify targets
and protect itself from those targets. The Navy cannot maximize the use of the
proposed EWR, nor can it produce fully trained combat-ready Tactical Electronic Attack
squadrons on the proposed EWR without electronic attack training being conducted
there. Nor can the Navy meet the Proposed Action and VAQ Mission and Training goals
for the proposed action without electronic attack training being conducted on the
proposed EWR. The Navy must study the impacts of this electronic attack training in the
proposed EIS. It should also stop denying its true intentions regarding electronic attack
training in its public statements. In the Navys informational meetings at Forks and Port
Angeles on the proposed EWR, as well as in the EA for the proposed EWR, it is
suggested that EMF from the proposed emitters would not be dangerous, in part because
it was directed upwards and away from any living thing that could be adversely affected
by the EMF. The implication from this is that EMF directed downwards, as it will be from
Growlers training in the proposed EWR, would be dangerous. Perhaps that is why the
Navy chose not to address this element of the proposed EWR in its environmental
documents. NEPA, however, does not allow for that exception. PPF is encouraged by the
statement in the above mentioned Guide that: A noise assessment will be conducted as
part of the EIS and it will include a supplemental noise analysis, a potential hearing-loss
analysis, and an assessment of non-auditory health effects. The supplemental noise
3172
analysis will include an evaluation of sleep disturbance, indoor speech interference, and
classroom learning interference. The potential hearing loss analysis will focus on any
portion of the local population that may be exposed to noise levels greater than 80 DNL.
Lastly, the assessment of non-auditory health effects will consist of a comprehensive
literature review. These studies, however, must be done with real noise level data
obtained from actual on ground measurements under the actual, specifically located flight
paths that the Growlers will travel, wherever they travel, and at whatever power levels
they travel, including all times when their afterburners are operating. These studies must
also be done by time of day and by time of year. This latter consideration is particularly
important in relation to nesting seasons for endangered birds and tourist seasons for
Olympic National Park and surrounding areas. It is not sufficient to assume that training
will take place at a constant number and duration of flights throughout the year, unless in
fact it does. These studies should include C-Weighted sound measurements and
analysis, they must incorporate supplemental noise measurements including Sound
Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (Lmax), in addition to Ldn, and they must
document the projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5
dB increments throughout the impacted areas. These studies should also address the
health effects of Startle Reactions and the effects on a persons feelings of loss of
control over their environment when subjected to noise impacts beyond their control. The
mention of certain impacts herein, does not mean to imply that there are not other
impacts to cover. The proposed EIS must consider the full range of environmental issues
and not eliminate any issues on the basis of preliminary, incomplete studies that purport
to reveal resources upon which the proposed action is unlikely to have any potential
environmental impacts. In the EA for the proposed EWR, the exclusion of geology, water,
land use, cultural, and transportation resources, and socioeconomics, and environmental
justice and protection of children, was simply not excusable. In evaluating the impacts on
Olympic National Park, the Navy should pay special attention to the fact that the Park is a
World Heritage site, an International Biosphere Reserve, and the home of One Square
Inch of Silence, one of the quietest places in the United States. The Park includes the
world's last remaining coastal rainforest ecosystem of its kind. It is an irreplaceable
cultural and natural resource. It is also the economic hub of the Olympic Peninsula. No
proposed action by the Navy should adversely impact this treasure in any way. Because
so much more should be evaluated in the Proposed EIS than was presented in the
Scoping documents, a whole new Scoping evaluation should be conducted by the Navy,
with another opportunity for the public to comment. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
Port Angeles, WA 98362 (b)(6)
for Protect the Peninsulas
Future, Inc.
3172
(b)(6)
3173
lopez, WA 98261
The North Fork of the Sauk River is in the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. It is a violation
of federal law to operate machinery there in. I have witnessed on many occasions
Whidbey based jets flying very close to the ground, many times I have seen the jets
below the Pacific Crest Trail. A Flight commander informed me that this was an
authorized flight pattern. Is it the official policy to violate federal law? Will the navy put
sound sensors under all flight paths to understand the navy's actual impact on our
country? Will the navy honestly asses the whole scope of the damage made by jet noise
to wild and unpopulated areas?
(b)(6)
3174
Victoria, V8N 4P7

In recent months the noise from 'growler' operations has impacted the comfort and
enjoyent of my home. Even within my house the vibration and noise intrudes on even
listen to TV. I oppose the planned increase in flight operations and numbers of plains. I
would ask the US Navy to be simply be good neighbours to Canadian citizens impacted
by your opertional requirement and move to an off shore isolated area rather than
operating frequently where it negatively impacts the enjoyement of peoples homes.
(b)(6)
3175
Victoria, BC CANADA, v8t3e9

The lower frequency noise travels all the way across the water to Victoria and shakes my
entire apartment building. It disrupts my sleep and is otherwise disturbing. I would greatly
appreciate if there was some kind of way to quiet or lessen the noise impact.
(b)(6)
3176

January 7. 2015 (b)(6)
. Port Angeles, WA 98363
EA-18G Grpw;er EIS Project Manager Navy Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic
6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attm: Code EV21/SS I have been a
property and business owner in Port Angeles since 1993. I am deeply disturbed that the
Navy plans to increase Growler flights over Olympic National Forest lands, The proposed
increase in the Growler Fleet at Whidbey Island will result in an increase in flights and
noise over Olympic National Forest lands, my residence and the North Olympic
Peninsula as indicated by the proposed flight paths on the Navys Environmental Impact
Statement. Since moving to the Peninsula, I have noticed a gradual increase in the
frequency of air traffic and jet engine noise. I have also heard more sonic booms in the
area. I know the deleterious effects of noise on myself and my neighbors. I have been
woken up a night due to loud air traffic. I have been unable to simply talk and be heard
because the noise is deafening. Quite simply, the peace and tranquility and
environmental quality are why I chose to live on the North Olympic Peninsula. These are
not trivial concerns. As citizens and stewards of this region we need to stand up to
preserve those qualities which future generations are yet to experience. Each Growler
jets is capable of producing noise levels as high as 150 db. Three Growlers (in formations
of 3) produce up to 450 decibels; enough sound vibration to impair human hearing. or
feel like an earthquake has struck. Growlers in their flight patterns routinely fly over
Coupville signaling over 110 dB. According to the center for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, For every three
decibels over 85, the permissible exposure time before hearing damage can occur is cut
in half. The Navys own Guide to the Scoping Meeting for the US Environemtnal
Immpact Statement for the EA-18G growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station
Whidbey Island pg. 13 says 75 dB or greater requires the greatest degree of land use
control. This situation is unacceptable and unnecessary. The Department of Defense
already owns land on which they can conduct War Games on. Surely the Navy can find
sites less sensitive to impact than those located adjacent to a UNESCO designated
Biosphere Reserve. (Olympic National Park.) The Navys finding of no significant impact
in the EIS simply is simply false. It is imperative that noise mitigation measures be
implemented in the Navys plan to insure the health and well being of all life forms within
the proposed project. The proposed Navy EIS of Increased Growler use over Forest
Service Lands is a direct violation of the 1988 Master Agreement between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture. Section B of this Agreement
clearly stipulates that: 1: National Forest Lands will become available for military training
activities when such activities can be made compatible with other uses and conform with
applicable forest management plans, provided the Department of Defense determines
and substantiates that the lands under its administration are unsuitable or unavailable.
No Olympic National Forest Management Plan regarding the Electronic Warfare Range
exists at this time. Section B of the 1988 Agreement stipulates that the Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service will: 3. Fully consider all proposals and, when necessary,
develop alternatives that may meet the needs of the Department of Defense and the
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The Navy EIS does not disclose alternate
proposals or an alternative to the current plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely (b)(6)
3176
(b)(6)
3177
Victoria, BC, Canada, WA V8S1T1

The deep, loud rumbling from these jets is very upsetting and disruptive to our life here
across the water in Victoria. My dog shakes and trembles, and we often think it's the start
of an earthquake. Please do not add more jets to this already disruptive air base in
ANOTHER COUNTRY.
(b)(6)
3178
Victoria, BC, v8v 4l8

I am writing because I am concerned with the low rumbling and vibrations that reach my
house in Victoria, BC. Our home seems to be one of those possibly affected by the
Growlers on Whitby Island, and we certainly do hear as well as possibly feel the
rumbling. Increasing these effects with more Growlers in the future could move the effect
from slightly noticeable to somewhat annoying. I have investigated other local sources
over the years (including working with the City of Victoria to test the effect of the nearby
water/sewage treatment plant at Clover Point), but none have proven to be the source.
Thank you for taking public comments on this subject, including from a city in Canada.
While I live in Canada, I am also a US Citizen (Minnesota).
(b)(6)
3179
Lopez Island, 98261

As the (b)(6)
the Lopez Children's Center which is located in Lopez Village, I am
concerned about Growler's flying over the village and the impact that this may have on
the children in our care. I have experienced children trying to nap suddenly sitting up
startled awake when the planes have flown over our building. I am also concerned about
the health affects on their hearing and stress levels when the planes fly over the
playground especially when they are playing outside. I am requesting that you specifically
study the health effects of jet noise on children. Thank you (b)(6)
, Lopez
Children's Center
(b)(6)
3180

(Reference: Mestre, V., et. al,: Technical Support For Day/Night Average Sound Level
paragraph.) D. We understand that noise measurements and projections in the EAs
(b)(6)
3181

To Whom It May Concern, I have owned property in Jefferson County since 1984 and
lived in Port Townsend since August of 1989. This is a unique and beautiful place,
somewhat dependent upon tourists due to the fact that we have a demographic that is
made up of many retired and older people. I am a 71 year old female. I depend upon
rental units for my income and the proceeds of house sales of homes I have owned here
over the years. I moved here because I was ill and unable to continue my career. The
ramping up of the noisy planes will likely impact my income adversely. I am more
concerned, however, with the impact of the escalating use of Growlers on the health and
wellbeing of those (human and animal) who endure the most noise, the possible dousing
during a fuel dump, and other adverse impacts. I am going to quote what my friends of 26
years wrote to you: "Breaking the growing Navy mission into separate environmental
statements is abusive to the public. One EIS focuses on ships, how many takes of marine
mammals. Another EA takes the western Olympic Peninsula for electromagnetic
training. Other EAs declare increasing military jet noise is insignificant.. We object that
the ground based activities, covered in the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range
EA, were segmented from this draft EIS. The impacts of those activities, and the impacts
on the areas that the 36 new EA-18Gs will be flying over, as well as the existing 82
Growler jets, should be covered in this EIS. The Growler aircraft should be made to be
quieter, as commercial jets have been. The noise of the Growler squadron will damage
the economy of the San Juans, Jefferson, Whidbey and Clallam. Roaring fleets of planes
practicing for many hours a day- late into the night destroys the tranquility and quality of
life of the people who live here, who come to visit. The Navy has created a nightmare for
citizens living near the Coupeville OLF. With the purchase of additional growlers and the
phasing out of using Mountain Home for training frequent jet noise flying over Port
Townsend will increase. If PT and PA experience what Lopez and Whidbey residents
subject to low altitude overflights have our peace of mind, our childrens health, the health
of the ecology of which we are a part will suffer. Mitigation of impact, such as that being
requested by San Juan County residents may become required in Jefferson and Clallam
Counties as well. Jet aircraft can deafen people, create health disorders and interfere
with convalescence from illness The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of
the residents in the impacted area should document the extent of this problem. An
hours should be developed and studied. The methodology of determining sound impact
on humans through averaging, using measuring techniques that dont include actual
measurements of airplanes in flight including the planes afterburners hides the planes
real impacts on humans. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include
afterburners. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly determined that
there was no adverse noise impact. This is just not so. Low frequency sounds impact
humans and the EIS should document the projected annual number of events that
exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including
San Juan, Jefferson and Clallam counties. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House
testing. Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric F414
engines used on the Growlers. Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey should be
modified to minimize routes over the south end of Lopez Island, Port Townsend, Port
Angeles, and Forks. Growler training flights over populated areas should be above 3,000
feet elevation. Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights Increasing the
number of jets will discourage visitors and reduce property values. The EIS should
Counties. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires
that Agencies shall Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers
at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. We dont want the planes to be purchased.
Their fuel consumption threatens the ecology, their use in training takes our tranquility.
Their use militarily threatens to cause a nuclear war. If only we had peacemakers in
Congress who dont worship war as an economic necessity. In the name of our children
and the wonderful inspiring majesty of the Olympic Peninsula we say no to more
growlers." I am also concerned that the number of contractors from corporations is such
a large part of the whole endeavor. It reflects the sad fact that corporations have largely
bought into our government to the extent that they have become a threat to all of us and
what we hold dear and necessary for our health and wellbeing and for our very lives. I
think it quite ironic that what is supposedly intended to protect the U.S. is in actuality a
source of harm to all that we depend upon for sustaining our lives. At this point an outside
enemy really does seem less a threat than our own armed forces and corporate
handmaidens impact upon our lives. I attended the meeting in Forks and said as much.
With Concern, (b)(6)
Port Townsend, WA
3181
(b)(6)
3182

Health Effects Related to Startle Reaction from Growler Training San Juan County has a
low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside). County residents are routinely exposed
90 114 dBA (outside) blasts of noise from Growler over flights and operations at Ault
Field resulting in startle reactions. This noise is perceived subconsciously by the human
body as a danger signal. The body reacts with fight or flight response with resultant
not become accustomed to repeated noise at this level. References: Kryter K:
address the health effects of Startle Reactions. Conduct medical surveys on the
Growler activity.
(b)(6)
3183
,
My husband and I have lived on Lopez Island for 33 years. It has been a place of natural
beauty, a peaceful rural community, where we have worked and raised our daughter. In
the past year, the tranquility has been shattered by the sudden intense noise and low
vibrations of the Growlers flying overhead. I have been impacted in our home near
Hummel Lake, at my studio in Lopez village near the Preschool, and in my work at the
south end of the island, where I care for elders. When walking with clients, they have
been visibly shaken as the roar of the planes has burst upon us. It has made us feel like
we are in a War Zone. Friends on the south end have lost their sense of home in the
unpredictable, continuous run-ups of the Growlers. This summer at Watmough Bight,
tourists were stunned by the intensity of the noise as the Growlers tore overhead. It is
shocking and disturbing when enjoying the quiet beauty of this National Monument area.
Many may not return, seriously impacting the economy of our island. The Navy considers
San Juan County an area of no significant impact. Our daily lives belie this assessment.
- The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of
and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. These vital
matters need careful measurement and assessment. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3184

Health Effects Related to Loss of Control Residents of San Juan County experience
Growler jet noise at all times of the day and night. The noise ranges from 65 110 dBA
and 75 124 dBC (inside) and is the result of over flights, engine testing and training
operations. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of training
Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
(b)(6)
3185
Seattle, WA 98115
I own recreational property in the San Juans and spend as much time as I can up there
and have since 1994. My husband and I are very distraught by the noise impacts of the
Growlers -- it no longer feels like a recreational area. The noise is very loud and stressful
to listen to. Please relocate the flight paths, to avoid this huge impact to a natural
recreational area.
(b)(6)
3186

Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely fly over
our school in the middle of the island and over Lopez Village where our Preschool and
(b)(6)
3187

Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance San Juan County residents regularly experience
Growler jet noise between the hours of 8 pm and 12 midnight. During the summer the
noise often continues to 1 am. The indoor threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. San
Juan County residents noise journals show that indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault
field range from 57 80 dBA. If the low frequency noise is measured the sound levels
range from 77 100 dBC. Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and ear protection does not
help. Using the Day-Night Average (Ldn) noise measure does not take into account that
our bodies do not average sleep loss. Noise annoyance during the night increases noise
annoyance for the following 24 hours. Noise disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead
to health disorders and interfere with convalescence from illness. Low frequency sound,
such as the Growler emits, is significantly disturbing even at low sound pressure levels.
(b)(6)
3188
, WA
To: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA
23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS January 9, 2015 Dear Sirs, Thank you for the opportunity to
provide scoping comments on the Navys upcoming Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the addition of 36 EA-18G Growler jets to the fleet of 82 existing
Growlers at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. I am a retired biologist from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service and live in Port Townsend, Washington, which is 13 miles across
Admiralty Inlet from Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. As I write this letter I am hearing
near-constant jet noise from two days of carrier landing practice, and it is intrusive. I
remain very concerned about the way the Navy has conducted the public process, and
am worried about potential impacts of jet noise, pollution and other stressors to the health
and well-being of communities, businesses, wildlife and natural habitats on the Olympic
Peninsula. SEPARATION OF ISSUES INTO 5 COMMENT PERIODS IN 2014: The
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires all federal agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement whenever they undertake any significant
action, and further stipulates that all activities that are functionally related must be
included. NEPA does not allow functionally related issues to be parceled out into
separate processes, but in conducting its NEPA process, the Navy has illegally separated
the ground, air, and sea-based activities of its proposed Electronic Warfare Testing and
Training program into different public processes that have resulted in five separate
comment periods in 2014; four of them within the last five months of the year: 1. January
April (Closed): Draft EIS on Northwest Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. 2. August (Closed): The Navys
Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment, on use of roads
in the Olympic National Forest; 3. September November (Closed): The Forest Services
decision on whether to issue a Special Use Permit for the above; 4. Closes January 9: An
EIS on the Navys addition of 36 EA-18G Growler jets to its fleet of 82 Growlers already
at NASWI; 5. Closes February 2: Changes to the EIS called Northwest Training and
Testing Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact
Statement, on expansion of sonar and explosive activities in the training zone that
includes the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the waters off Indian Island, and the Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary, which consists of 2,408 square nautical miles off Olympic
Peninsula coastline. . The public does not view these electronic warfare testing and
training activities as separate, and the Navys separation of them into five distinct
processes is causing widespread confusion and frustration. I understand that the current
EIS component is only about the additional 36 EA-18G Growler jets, but certainly the air
and ground-based activities in this training program are too closely related to be
considered separately. The scope of the EIS as described in the Fall 2014 brochure, A
Guide to the Scoping Meeting (for the subject EIS) is far too limited to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The geographic area proposed to be covered
by the EIS is limited to the Whidbey Island area generally, and to landings, takeoffs, and
touch and go training at Ault and OLF fields. As anyone who lives in the area near these
flight paths well knows, the noise footprint of these aircraft is not limited to Whidbey
Island, it is along, adjacent to, and at a large distance from, the flight paths in and out of
NASWI and to and from the Olympic and Roosevelt-Okanogan MOAs. Impacts do not
end at the little red flight path lines drawn on illustrations, they extend to as far as the
EA-18Gs fly. Growler jets are loud, and pilots are flying them over our communities at low
enough altitudes to cause disturbances. Under NEPA those impacts must be evaluated in
the EIS both in the area between Whidbey Island and the proposed EWR, and in the
area of the proposed EWR. Because that was not done in the Navys Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed EWR, it should be done now. This is also necessary
under the 1988 Master Agreement between the Department of Defense and the US
Department of Agriculture. That Master Agreement requires the Forest Service to study
both the impacts of the proposed land-based training activities and the impacts of the
proposed use of airspace if directly associated with the land based training. So the
separation of ground and air-based activities into different study processes, one an EA
and one an EIS, in which the public must restrict comments to narrowly defined subject
areas, goes against both NEPA and the Master Agreement. I ask you to fulfill the
stipulations of the Master Agreement and the requirements of NEPA, and include a
thorough study of all impacts of the Electronic Warfare Range in the DEIS. The Navys
EA for the EWR states at Page 2-8: All of the EW training activities and locations that
would be associated with the implementation of the Pacific Northwest EW Range were
analyzed in the NWTRC EIS/OEIS. The NWTRC EIS/OEIS has an October 2010 Record
of Decision that approved an alternative that included EW training activities associated
with the establishment of a fixed emitter in the Pacific Beach area. Current training levels
in the Olympic MOAs and W237 will remain the same as per the NWTRC EIS/OEIS, and
any changes to the type or tempo of training conducted in the Olympic MOAs and W237
will be addressed in the Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT) EIS/OEIS.
Unfortunately, neither statement is accurate. That the NWTRC EIS does not evaluate the
3188
demonstrates it was not evaluated in the NWTT either. The Navy must evaluate the
impacts of the Growlers, not just the new 36 jets but all proposed 118 of them, both in the
EWR, with the same intensity and specificity it evaluates the impacts of the Growlers in
the Whidbey Island area. Because there are 15 mobile emitter sites in the proposed EWR
and one fixed emitter site, there are essentially 16 OLFs in the proposed EWR. A detailed
portrayal of flight paths for each of the 16 proposed emitter sites is needed. The same is
true of every possible flight path to and from the proposed EWR. With neither the
Growlers, must now be evaluated in the proposed EIS. NO SUBSTANTIAION AS
REQUIRED BY 1988 MASTER AGREEMENT: The Navy should also consider that the
1988 Master Agreement authorized military use of National Forest lands only if that use is
compatible with other uses and in conformity with applicable forest plans, provided the
Department of Defense determines and substantiates that lands under its administration
are unsuitable or unavailable. NASWI is already conducting electronic warfare training at
several Department of Defense bases in the Northwest that include restricted airspace
and nearly half a million acres of land. Only one, the Fallon Training Range Complex, is
mentioned, in a single paragraph on page 2-9 of the EA. This does not qualify as the kind
of substantiation required by the Master Agreement. At a public meeting, John Mosher
stated that scheduling problems at other bases was a compelling reason for the Navys
proposed actions, but this reason was not stated in the EA. If scheduling problems are
the reason that has caused the Navy to want its own warfare range, then the Department
of Defense is obligated to do a better job of scheduling its range use before allowing the
Navy to proceed. The tradeoffs reported in the EA, which include $5 million in fuel
savings and more time for pilots to spend with families, is far too high in terms of
unknown, unstudied and unspoken impacts to the Olympic Peninsula. Also, Capt.
Michael Nortier, the commanding officer at NASWI, stated as a Guest Columnist in the
Whidbey Island News-Times on December 17, 2014 and in the Port Townsend Leader on
December 24, 2014, The armed services have decades of experience successfully
electronic warfare range. As a result, use of mobile sites in the Olympic National Forest
for the proposed EWR may not be legal. THE SCOPE AND INTENT OF ELECTRONIC
ATTACK TRAINING: Section 2.1.2 of the EA that the navy issued in September 2014
says, The activities of the Proposed Action center on two divisions of EW, known as
requirements on local ranges; Section 4.2.1.3 of the EA for the proposed EWR says,
trained, properly manned, interoperable, wellmaintained, and supported. The Proposed
Action section of the Fall 2014 A Guide to the Scoping Meeting (for the subject EIS)
says The Navy is proposing to increase electronic attack (VAQ) capabilities by adding up
to 36 aircraft to support an expanded VAQ mission and training at NAS Whidbey Island.
3188
Finally, the VAQ Mission and Training section of the above mentioned Guide says, The
missions of the VAQ squadrons include electronic surveillance and attack against enemy
radar and communications systems. This involves the use of jamming equipment and
anti-radiation missiles. The Growler has an advanced electronic system that allows it to
identify targets and protect itself from those targets. The Navy cannot maximize the
use of the proposed EWR, nor can it produce fully trained combat-ready Tactical
Electronic Attack squadrons on the proposed EWR without electronic attack training
being conducted there. Nor can the Navy meet the Proposed Action and VAQ Mission
and Training goals for the proposed action without electronic attack training being
conducted on the proposed EWR. In the Navys informational meetings at Forks, Port
Angeles and Pacific Beach, on the proposed EWR, as well as in the EA for the proposed
EWR, it is suggested that electromagnetic radiation from the proposed emitters would not
be dangerous, in part because it was directed upwards and away from any living thing
that could be adversely affected by it. The implication from this is that EMF directed
downwards, as it will be from Growlers training in the proposed EWR, would be
dangerous. According to a navy spokesman in a news interview, part of the training
requires identification by aircrews of the signal ID from the emitters, and then they must
initiate a simulated harm shoot. What exactly is a simulated harm shoot? What type of
weapons will be used for that? What are the risks involved? The Navy has chosen not to
address this element of the proposed EWR in its environmental documents. NEPA,
however, does not allow for that exception. Assurances have been made by the Navy at
public meetings (and recorded on videotape) that no electronic attack weapons would be
used during training, but such statements are contradicted by the citations listed above,
from the Navys own documents. If true, those assurances must be clearly incorporated,
in writing, in the EIS. The Navy must fully study the impacts and risks to public health and
the environment of this electronic attack training in the proposed EIS. All true intentions
regarding electronic attack training must be disclosed in the EIS, and an analysis of
economic impacts on affected communities, many of whose economies run on tourism,
must be provided. NOISE HAS SPREAD AND INCREASED DRAMATICALLY: Over the
past several years there has been a marked increase in jet noise around the Olympic
Peninsula. Flights at OLF-Coupeville increased from 3,200 in 2010 to 13,300 in 2012.
The number of flights is likely to increase given the relocation of the nations entire
Growler fleet to NASWI, and the fact that the Navy has embarked on a contract to train
foreign pilots at NASWI. Although the Navy is authorized to fly at 6000 feet above mean
sea level, its pilots are allowed to fly as low as 1200 feet above ground level over some
parts of the Olympic Military Operating Area (MOA,) which occupies the airspace over the
Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. Additionally, Growlers taking off and
landing at NASWI are more likely to fly at lower altitudes over Port Townsend and nearby
communities, thus creating more noise. The Navy has been asked as public meetings to
fly over water rather than directly over these communities, but has answered that its
hands are tied because flight paths are controlled by the FAA. If the Navy is working with
the FCC on de-conflicting interference with civilian frequencies, then why can it not work
with the FAA to defuse a noise issue that has so angered the public? The Navy uses the
Day-Night Average Sound Level calculation to assess noise levels, but uses a jet
engine placed on a test platform and a computer modeled calculation rather than an
actual jet. Using a similar method to what the FAA uses at commercial airports, the Navy
averages the noise levels over 365 days that include quiet periods in order to calculate
noise levels. Growlers can produce enough noise to cause hearing loss. They are
3188
capable of speeds of 1400 mph, and unlike the subsonic Prowlers they are replacing,
which can fly at 600 mph, Growlers are capable of producing sonic booms, which have
been described at public meetings by residents of communities on the West End. Navy
statistics for older jets say they can produce 113 decibels at an altitude of 1000 feet,
which is above the human pain threshold. No accurate sound measurements for
Growlers have been provided by the Navy to other agencies or to the public. Since the
fuselage, external instruments and weapons attachments on a jet create additional noise
to that of the engine, especially at takeoff and landing, and since afterburners are
frequently used but have not been included in any noise level calculations, this must be
rectified with more accurate noise measurements that use a more realistic means of
feedback. Computer modeling that averages noise over a year of quiet periods reflects
neither the aforementioned aspects nor the episodically extreme nature of Growler jet
noise. Federal and state agencies rely on the Navys noise data to assess potential
impacts to threatened and endangered species. If such measurements do not reflect the
realities of Growler jet noise, documentation of their application in assessing impacts may
be invalid. I am encouraged by the statement in the above mentioned Guide that says: A
noise assessment will be conducted as part of the EIS and it will include a supplemental
noise analysis, a potential hearing-loss analysis, and an assessment of non-auditory
health effects. The supplemental noise analysis will include an evaluation of sleep
disturbance, indoor speech interference, and classroom learning interference. The
be exposed to noise levels greater than 80 DNL. Finally, the assessment of non-auditory
must be done with real noise level data obtained from actual on-ground measurements
of year, and must be corroborated independently. Seasonal considerations are
particularly important in relation to nesting seasons for endangered birds, as well as
tourist seasons for Olympic National Park and surrounding areas. It is not sufficient to
assume that training will take place at a constant number and duration of flights
throughout the year, unless in fact it does. These studies should include C-Weighted
sound measurements and analysis, they must incorporate supplemental noise
measurements including Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (Lmax), in
addition to Ldn, and they must document the projected annual number of events that
exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in 5 dB increments throughout the impacted areas. These
studies should also address the health effects of Startle Reactions and the effects on a
persons feelings of loss of control over their environment when subjected to noise
impacts beyond their control. There are numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies,
including reports by the Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health
Organization, and the US Department of Transportation, on the health effects of aircraft
noise and pollution. The EIS must address these issues using a thorough analysis of
existing scientific literature. OTHER IMPACTS MUST NOT BE EXCLUDED: The mention
of certain impacts herein does not mean to imply that there are not other impacts to
cover. The proposed EIS must consider the full range of environmental issues and not
eliminate any issues on the basis of preliminary, incomplete studies that purport to reveal
resources upon which the proposed action is unlikely to have any potential environmental
impacts. For example, the single study on effects of electromagnetic radiation on
3188
biological tissue stands alone in a field of more than 1,000 peer-reviewed studies that
refute it. The Navy appeared to be cherry-picking its references. As another example, fire
danger is not mentioned in any documents, yet EA-18Gs have a crash rate many times
higher than other jets and carry thousands of gallons of fuel. Fuel dumping continues to
occur, and eyewitness accounts have reported it. Does the Navy keep records on the
number of times this occurs, and does it have estimates of the amount of fuel dumped?
Have scientific investigations been conducted on the effects of this dumped fuel on
surrounding lands and waters? The DEIS should also address this concern in a thorough
manner. No studies on the effects of toxic substances on the area west of the runway in
which fuel is normally dumped have been provided. In the September 2014 EA, the
exclusion by dismissal, of geology, water, land use, cultural, transportation resources,
and socioeconomics, and environmental justice and, especially, protection of children
was simply inexcusable. There has been no discussion or documentation from the Navy
on impacts to property values or tourism-based economies from jet noise, and we ask
that these analyses be included in the DEIS. We are aware of the devastating impact on
from jet noise on the real estate market at North Whidbey Island, and have similar
concerns for Port Townsend. These concerns also include economic impacts to our
tourism-based economy. In 2010 there were 335 openings at the Hood Canal Bridge,
most of which took 30 minutes and resulted in extensive traffic backups. 100 of these
were for the Navy. According to the Supplemental EIS, there may be more bridge
openings associated with the Navy and they will be longer because of the number of
escort vessels and slow speeds required; 60 of these openings will last up to 60 minutes,
with Washington State Patrol Troopers and canine teams erecting physical barriers at
each end of the bridge. On page 3.32 of the Supplemental EIS it says that advance
notice for these openings is limited for national security reasons and transits could occur
any time of day and any day of the week. Therefore, vehicles and vessels may be less
able to choose to avoid the area during these events. Some medical services such as
kidney dialysis, that are not available in Port Townsend or other communities west of the
Hood Canal Bridge, require patients to cross the bridge. Delays caused by increased
numbers of 60-minute openings with less advance notice and the ensuing massive
backups they cause will mean missed appointments, or missed flights at SeaTac, or
re-routing of ambulances. We ask that the Navy make every effort to give the public
enough advance notification of bridge closings so that critical services are not interrupted
and so that risk to medical patients is minimized. The Pacific Northwest Electronic
Warfare Range covers more than just the Olympic National Park and Olympic National
Forest; it also includes DNR, Tribal and private lands in western Clallam, Jefferson and
Grays Harbor Counties, as well as offlying waters that include the Olympic National
Marine Sanctuary plus the Strait of Juan deFuca and Puget Sound. Anything less than a
full analysis of all impacts from the Navys Electronic Warfare Testing and Training
program in all of these areas would be less than adequate. In evaluating the impacts on
proposed action by the Navy should adversely impact this treasure in any way.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: With regard to endangered species,
there are many problems with using a Biological Opinion that relies on data at least 5
3188
years old to justify the Navys claim of no significant impacts to wildlife and habitats. A
Biological Opinion is for the purpose of evaluating whether an activity will jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species. It does not address anything else only effects
on species that are already threatened with extinction. The Fish and Wildlife Services
200-page 2010 Biological Opinion covered a huge area of airspace, but only 875 acres of
land were specifically named, between Everett and Mt Baker. The lone ground-based
emitter mentioned was located in Coupeville, and the number of annual training events
for Growler jets proposed back in 2009 was 275. Thats all the Biological Opinion
evaluated. Not 3 mobile emitters and one fixed tower in 15 new places, nor 36 (or 118)
Growler jets in areas previously not evaluated, nor 2,900 training events in the Olympic
National Forest and another 2100 in the Roosevelt-Okanogan MOA, for 8 to 16 hours per
day, 260 days per year. This is twenty times the level of activity that was covered in the
Biological Opinion. The Navy is now moving into an area for which no adequate biological
analyses have been done. Therefore, using the 2010 Biological Opinion to justify the
Navys claim of no significant impacts invalidates such claims as well as the
Environmental Assessment itself. Plus, use of computer-modeled noise levels of older
jets that are far less loud as Growlers invalidates the Biological Opinion for the proposed
activity with Growlers. In 2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the Navys
assessment of most of the endangered species except for the marbled murrelet and the
bull trout. In both cases, they said these species would likely be adversely affected, but
the Navys actions were not likely to jeopardize the species, meaning render them
extinct, because they are still found in other areas. The only mention of the airspace in
the Olympic Military Operating Area was to say that the jets flying enroute to training
activities at sea would be at such high altitudes that no effects were anticipated for the
threatened and endangered species in that area. Things have changed dramatically in
five years. Now the Navy is moving its activities into those other areas, yet insists on
relying on a Biological Opinion that did not adequately evaluate effects on the Olympic
Peninsula. Marbled murrelet abundance decreased 26 percent between 2002 and 2010,
and the top conservation priority to keep them from going extinct remains reproductive
success. A big stronghold for these birds is the area that the Navy is expanding into;
combined with the Navys impacts from sonar and explosives, the possibility of jeopardy
can no longer be ignored. When asked at a public meeting, both the Navy and the Forest
Service confirmed that they had no intention of re-initiating formal consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. The Navy claimed that it
had done informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, but has not provided
the documents despite requests. The Navy must reinitiate formal consultation with the US
Fish and Wildlife Service, to study impacts of jet noise and pollution on species in the
area over which these jets will actually be flying. This includes the entire flight path, not
just the Whidbey Island area. NEPA DEMANDS A GOOD FAITH PUBLIC PROCESS:
Any public process must be a good faith effort. I am aware of a number of letters from the
Boards of Supervisors in Humboldt, Marin and Mendocino Counties in California,
expressing deep concerns about being kept unaware of the Navys training plans along
those coasts until late into the process, and later, questioning why their concerns were
never addressed in the Navys final NEPA documents. The public is worried about similar
results happening here. No notices about the Navys comment period for its
Environmental Assessment (EA) were published in any newspapers that directly serve
communities on the North Olympic Peninsula or West End. The only notice was an 8X11
poster pasted in the window of the Forks post office and noticed more than a month after
3188
the comment period closed. None of the hundreds of citizen comments that were given at
public informational meetings (which occurred only because of the insistence of
Congressman Derek Kilmer) were ever recorded for the official record. In its public
outreach materials for the Olympic Peninsula, the Navy shows the locations of its 15
proposed emitters using a map that erases Lake Quinault, all major rivers, and all
boundaries between the Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. If helping
the public understand exactly where the emitters are to be located was the purpose of the
map, then why was so much important detail omitted? The Navy must stop omitting
important information that makes it more difficult for the public to understand their
intentions. I have seen letters from County Commissioners in Humboldt, Marin and
Mendocino Counties in California, that first express concern at having been unaware of
the Navys plans for their coastal waters and later, dismay at having seen their concerns
ignored in final documents. Therefore, I question the transparency of the Navys public
process, and in particular, how it justifies the fact that after a comment period on its EA
that was half the 30-day minimum length recommended by NEPA, it issued immediately
after and continues to stand by, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that includes
this statement: The Navy received no comments from individuals, elected officials,
government organizations, or Native American Tribes in response to the Draft EA. Once
the public became aware of the Navys plans, more than 3,000 comments poured in
during the October-November comment period on whether the Forest Service should
issue a Special Use Permit for use of its roads, thus refuting any previous implications
that public concern is lacking. With these problems in mind, the FONSI of August 28,
2014 must be cancelled, the September 2014 EA nullified, and an EIS process initiated to
combine all of the proposed activities, addressing concerns that have been raised again
and again, about potential impacts to the health, economic and ecological values of all
communities and public lands that will be affected. Please send me by email, a link to an
online copy of this EIS when it is ready for distribution. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment. Sincerely, (b)(6)
3188
(b)(6)
3189

Alternatives The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States: The alternatives include
variations of the following factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to be purchased 2. Number
of aircraft assigned per squadron 3. Number of land-based squadrons. 4. The distribution
of aircraft operations at NAS Whidbey Island between Ault Field and OLF Coupeville
There are no alternatives that base the Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey
alternatives ... . We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just because they
(b)(6)
3190

(b)(6)
3191

(b)(6)
3192

Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments The 2005 and 2012
numerous comments. Analysis Human health consequences Alternatives Mitigation
(b)(6)
3193
, WA 98261
I have been a property owner on the south end of Lopez Island for 18 years. I several
years building our dream home. The jets have always been unbelievably loud and
disruptive but we coped. Then, just after finishing building two years ago it was apparent
that the Navy Prowler jets had been replaced, at least partially, with the Growler jet. The
sound went from annoying and deafening to unbearable and deafening. Simply put this is
a form of torture. The Growlers rumble and vibrate at such a frequency it feels very much
like an earthquake or continuous thunder. The feeling of fear and anger is unavoidable.
And this fall of 2014 we are exposed to this almost every week day and night, often
continuously. Several people on our bay (Hughes Bay) have developed cancer in the last
decade. What are the impacts on humans of the Growler frequency we are constantly
being exposed to? The constant stress of feeling like you should run and take cover over
time. We get sporadic blasts of noise throughout the day ranging from 75 113 decibels.
I can feel my adrenalin kick in and my blood pressure rises. This constant noise is
definitely affecting my health. This should be measured at current constant operations of
the Growlers and the projected to increased numbers of jets which the Navy is proposing
to acquire. The EIS should address the health effects of Startle Reactions. Medical
surveys should be conducted on the affected populations including San Juan County.
Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. The EIS should address the
question of who will pay for PTSD as a consequence of the growler noise exposure in
SJC and this region as a whole. PTSD symptoms from the jets can already be observed
on the south end of Lopez Island.
3194

I am commenting on the Navy's proposal to add an additional 36 EA-18G Growler jets to
its current fleet of 82 Growl Dr s already stationed at NASWI. I am opposed to this
addition. When the Navy first located to Whidbey Island, I believe around the time of
WWII, Whidbey Island was rural, and fighter jets were much quieter. But times have
changed, the peak noise of the Growlers is much louder, there are many more people on
the Island, including children, and we know a lot more about the harmful effects of noise,
both overall and peak, on long term hearing loss, stress, sleep and general quality of life.
I went to one of the informational meetings with Navy reps, and I was very disappointed
with the emphasis of AVERAGE noise numbers, rather than peak. My understanding is
that the peak numbers are the ones over time that will lead to hearing loss. So I see this
as the Navy as being misleading and deceptive, which does nothing to inspire trust in our
government. Vietnam and Agent Orange come to mind. I am also concerned about fuel
dumps, and the environmental and health implications for the solids that don't vaporize
and fall to the ground or water. Have sufficient studies been conducted on this? In
concluding, I agree we need a strong military with excellent training for our service
personnel. But concentrating so many resources in one location (I think of Pearl Harbor)
which now has a significant population, and not better mitigating health and
environmental issues, is not the answer. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
(b)(6)
3195
lopez, WA 98261
I have been a property owner on the south end of Lopez Island for 18 years. I spent 6
continuously. Like other island residents, I am now planning trips to Seattle to experience
quiet and avoid Growler hazing at our home. This is preposterous. The Navy should be
alternatives. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments were incorrect in stating
that there was no adverse noise impact from the introduction of the Growlers. Therefore it
was inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. The following mitigation measures
must be fully considered. All selected mitigation measures should be included in the
Record of Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion. a) Growler training flight
paths from NAS Whidbey Island (map on page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be
Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA).
(b)(6)
3196
LOPEZ, WA 98261
continuously. One night in the fall of 2014 after a very long day I feel asleep. Out of a
deep sleep I was awakened by thunder and rumble in time to see the belly of a jet (a
sub-hunter) through the sky light around midnight. It was so low I thought it was going to
crash. This happens frequently and the navy says they dont fly below 3000 feet over our
island. Most of the time we see the jets they are below 3000 feet. But they navy doesnt
keep records of their jets flights or altitudes? WHY? The EIS should address sleep
should document the extent of this problem. An action alternative that removes FCLP and
Approach practice from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed
and studied.
(b)(6)
3197
seattle, WA 98115
i have owned property on a small island in the san juan islands (frost island) for 25 years
and it's a compelling reason for us to live in the northwest. my wife and i live and work in
seattle but spend a few months and many weekends a year on the island. it has always
been a peaceful and lovely place. over the past year or so, the advent of the growler
flyovers has destroyed the tranquility of the san juans. to suggest that the islands are not
significantly impacted by the noise of these planes is truly absurd as anyone who has
spent time there knows, including anyone from the navy who has spent any time at all
evaluating the situation on the ground. the environment is important to everyone but to
washington state and to the residents and the economy of the islands, which live, in large
part, from the proceeds of tourism, in particular. and the growlers are ruining the place.
please don't allow the status quo to continue and please don't allow the situation to
become even worse -- the noise is awful and i absolutely concur w/the following: - The
(b)(6)
3198
, WA 98261
I am an Ecologist who has been a property owner on the south end of Lopez Island for 18
years. I spent 6 years building our dream home. The jets have always been unbelievably
loud and disruptive but we coped. Then, just after finishing building two years ago it was
apparent that the Navy Prowler jets had been replaced, at least partially, with the Growler
jet. The sound went from annoying and deafening to unbearable and deafening. Simply
put this is a form of torture. The Growlers rumble and vibrate at such a frequency it feels
very much like an earthquake or continuous thunder. The feeling of fear and anger is
unavoidable. And this fall of 2014 we are exposed to this almost every week day and
night, often continuously. Most of the EIS recommendations I have seen address the
impacts of the noise of the Growlers on humans. What has been overlooked are the
effects on non-human species and the entire Salish Sea ecosystem. Those of us who live
here depend on the health of this ecosystem not just economically but spiritually.
Additional pollution, noise and air, undoubtedly effects both terrestrial and marine
organisms. The EIS must assess the impacts of this continuous low frequency Growler
noise and air pollution on non-human organisms and the entire Salish Sea ecosystem.
(b)(6)
3199
Victoria, WA 98101
I am a Canadian that lives in Victoria BC on Vancouver Island. We strongly oppose the
the operations happening at Whidbey Island. Besides the sound of impeding doom we
hear many times a day when actions are scheduled, the effect on the MASSIVE amounts
of endangered wildlife in this area are beyond evaluation. Please move your work to the
desert where there are no people or wildlife! It is VERY disruptive on Vancouver Island
(Victoria) and scares our children.
(b)(6)
3200
LOPEZ ISLAN, WA 98261

years carefully building our retirement home. The jets have always been unbelievably
jets. The sound went from annoying and deafening to unbearable and deafening. Simply
night, often continuously. Why have there been no on the ground studies of the noise
level of the jets on Lopez Island? Since the navy insists our recordings of dB levels are
incorrect they should fund a study that measures this. It should be a third party who does
this study and they should have several points where they collect data over time and on
the C and A scales. We insist that the NAVY EIS for current and additional Growler
aircraft include: Continuous sound measurements (on the ground not just computer
model projections) in the southern portion of SJC over a one-month period when the jets
are the most active. These data should not be averaged. Include C Weighted sound
measurements and analysis in the EIS for at least a month when the jets are most active
and under various weather conditions. These data should not be averaged. The EIS
Exposure Level (LCE) and Peak Sound Level (LCPeak) in addition to Ldn. Sound
measurement and analysis in the EIS should include the effect of afterburners or the
Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the Record of Decision (ROD) to not use
afterburners in training flights over North Puget Sound.
(b)(6)
3201
Cincinnati and Greenbank Wa, OH 45244

Dear Community: My father was a proud member of the Air Force (Lackland AFB/
Communications/ Okinawa). From Greenbank, Wa - I traveled to NAS Whidbey to
welcome the safe return of the jet & Crew following the snafu that detained it/them in
China - very grateful that prayers were answered for a peaceful return. I brought back
small flags given out that day - one for me, one for my father and 2 that were a part of the
Candlelight Vigil and pre-planned Installation at City Hall, Cincinnati in the fall of 2001.
Returning to Whidbey Island in 2002 - I helped co-ordinate a deeply felt commemoration for grieving and healing purposes - on the first Anniversary of Sept-11 in Langley. (During
a working summer ('96) in the NYC area - I had been to the viewing deck of the Towers
(where I took in the view for hours) and later, in 2000, was planning to co-ordinate an
exhibition in the Tower Lobby) A month after he passed from a long drawn-out illness my dad's flag ended up in the Cincinnati Enquirer's 2008 Inaugural Special Edition. While
we want to have a measure of defense of the right kind - We don't want to get out of hand
- out of balance and become the very thing we are wanting to protect ourselves from. The
level of activity with prowlers (save the buildup to the very expensive and costly invasion
of Iraq) - was livable, compatible, tolerable. Even to one who is awaiting (and working
towards) experiencing the world budgets being used more and more for habitat
regeneration and infrastructure redesign/renewal. But - while I saw nothing but a room full
of honorable service people in that hangar the day the Crew returned to NASW - I must
concur that NAS Whidbey, The complex, struggling-to-survive Marine Community of the
Salish Sea-Puget Sound region - and the Olympic Peninsula area is not the place for
training in these very expensive - and very loud - growler jets. Cherri Ann Forrest Wildlife
abounds undisturbed in Olympic National Park. On our visit, we spotted several bird
species, and even came across a few Roosevelt elk for which the park was established
in 1938 in part to protect nibbling their lunch. Other animals that can be found within the
park include black bear, coyote, wolves, bobcats, black-tailed deer, mountain goats, red
fox, mink, river otters and many more. Mornings and evenings are the best time for
spotting the less-elusive animals.
(b)(6)
3202
LOPEZ ISLAND, 98261

I am an Ecologist who has been a property owner on the south end of Lopez Island for 18
years. I spent 6 years building our dream home. The jets have always been unbelievably
jet. The sound went from annoying and deafening to unbearable and deafening. Simply
night, often continuously. Most of the EIS recommendations I have seen address the
impacts of the noise of the Growlers on humans. What has been overlooked are the
effects on non-human species and the entire Salish Sea ecosystem. Those of us who live
here depend on the health of this ecosystem not just economically but spiritually.
Additional pollution, noise and air, undoubtedly effects both terrestrial and marine
organisms. The EIS must assess the impacts of this continuous low frequency Growler
noise and air pollution on non-human organisms and the entire Salish Sea ecosystem.
(b)(6)
3203
LOPEZ ISLAND, 98261

I live on the south end of Lopez Island. Over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations
to live on the island. When the jets are flying the noise is often so intense that
(b)(6)
3204
LOPEZ ISLAND, 98261

continuously. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments (EAs) are deficient in the
following areas as noted in numerous comments. Analysis Human health
consequences Alternatives Mitigation Economic consequences This EIS should
conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis
(b)(6)
3205
Victoria, Canada, V8S 2X5

I live in Canada, in fact in a part of Canada south of the 49th parallel, on the southern tip
of Vancouver Island. Recently I have started hearing a growling sound that I first thought
was an earthquake, then figured out that it was a jet and finally found out that it was the
US Navy "Growlers" taking off from the US Navy base on Whitby Island. At times the jets
seem to be taking off in 5 minute intervals. The sound actually causes the walls of my
home to rattle. I sincerely hope that you will considerate of your Canadian neighbours
and reconsider the decision to increase the number of growler jets. Where I used to hear
just birds now I hear military jets.
(b)(6)
3206
LOPEZ ISLAND, 98261

continuously. Like others we moved here because of the beauty and the quiet. The
Growlers are changing the quality of life in San Juan County. We would never have
bought property here if we had experienced the intrusive noise from NASWI. The San
values. I have never wanted to leave Lopez but lately I have wanted to go to seattle for
peace. Why would people from Seattle want to come to the islands if there is more noise
pollution here than there is over there? The EIS should address economic impacts
throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties.
(b)(6)
3207
Victoria,
strongly prefer no action - noise from the existing jets is already extremely intrusive
(b)(6)
3208
LOPEZ ISLAND, 98261

continuously. On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely fly over our school in the middle of
the island and over Lopez Village where our Preschool and Childrens Center is located.
(b)(6)
3209

continuously. The EIS should include an alternative that would base Growlers
somewhere other than NASWI. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality
bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
3210
LOPEZ ISLAND, 98261

continuously. The frequency at which we smell and are exposed to jet fuel exhaust has
increased dramatically in the last year. The NAVY EIS should address the effects of
current Growler traffic on air quality in San Juan County particularly around the normal
flight routes.
(b)(6)
3211
Victoria, WA V8S 1L6

I put down WA state as you don't include BC and Canada, but in Victori we are disturbed
by the Growlers ALL the time. The rumbles make our windows of our 1912 Victoria house
shake and make our dog bark in fear. With the noise and vibrations that we can feel, I
worry about the impact on the endangered whales and other species that communicate
by sound vibrations. We share common space, so the impact on your neighbors should
be considered.
(b)(6)
3212
victoria,
The deep rumbling noise is very disturbing. We hear it at all times of day and night!
Please make this stop!
(b)(6)
3213

Welcoming visitors to the Olympic Peninsula vital to our rural tourism economy.
Enhancing the economic vitality of our passionate lodging, culinary and natural /
recreational resource stewards is key to the continual growth and development of
Washington States fourth largest economic industry tourism. Desiring to maintain this
vital, welcoming resource I ask that all impacts of the Navys Electronic Warfare Testing
and Training program be discussed in one comprehensive document. This includes
support that the No Action Alternative be adopted for the replacement of the Prowler
aircraft with the newer Growler aircraft at NAS Whidbey Island, as detailed on this date at
website: http://www.whidbeyeis.com/ProposedAction.aspx Thank you for your
consideration.
(b)(6)
3214

I live near Telegraph Bay on SE Lopez. The Navy considers San Juan County an area of
no significant impact. This is astoundingly arrogant. Since the arrival of the Growler our
community has complained about the escalating noise , overflights and late night noise.
Our County has created a website where we can enter our noise events. It shows the
location, time and intensity of the noise event.. When presented with the data the Navy
concluded that all operations they could verify were routine operations. End of
discussion. When we have requested that the Navy take actual measurements their
response is that computer generated contours are accurate. If they are accurate why are
we receiving so much noise? Never once have they considering verifying the computer
modeled contours with actual data which would reflect the noise crossing water, reflecting
off bed rock, and even refracting over the 12 miles of water and becoming louder. My
noise log (inside the house measurements) for the last two days shows: Monday,
January 5, 2015: 11 hours of pretty steady noise beginning at 10:53am (115.4dBC) and
finally ending at 9:45pm. Throughout the day the noise inside averaged 75-85dBC with
peak measurements of 122, 112 and 110dBC Tuesday, January 6, 2015: 11 hours
starting at 8:05am (108dBC inside the house) ending at 9:10pm. Throughout the day the
noise was constant very few breaks averaging 85dBC. Peaks recorded were 122,
120, 118 etc. These measurements are becoming the norm. Averaging sound over 365
days is only a piece of a noise profile. Ldn measurements may be useful for some
calculations but they are only one tool. Our bodies do not average sound. We have just
learned that the each Growler takeoff requires the use of afterburners. We think this
accounts for the huge blasts of noise that punctuate each day. The Navy did not admit to
this until the scoping meetings. We also learned that the Navy did not consider the C
weighted sound measurements or the effects of after burners when studying noise
impacts on the surrounding communities. Further they have stated they have no intention
of studying the C weighted sound for this EIS. Why would the signature noise of a
Growler be omitted from consideration? Based on the above comments the Navy should
before adding ANY Growlers to NASWI: *Conduct continuous on the ground - sound
measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a two-month period. *Include C
Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. *The EIS analysis should
areas including San Juan County. *Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should
(b)(6)
3215

Gentlemen; As a resident of Lopez Island, I find the noise level eminating from Whidbey
Island NAS to be not only annoying, but destructive. I understand the Navy has an
important mission, and as a disabled veteran, I know what that means. When there is not
a direct threat to our security, the Navy also has a responsibility to be a good neighbor,
and noise mitigation is at the top of the list in my opinion. I understand that the Navy can
build a"quiet house" to test engines and that sounds like a great idea. It's not perfect, but
perhaps a step toward making peaceful co-existence with the NAS at least tolerable.
Right now it's intolerable.
(b)(6)
.
I live on SE Lopez. I have cancer. My health is being degraded by the constant roar of
Growlers punctuated by the huge blasts of sound which literally shake our bodies and our
homes. I can feel the tension build through the day - probably from all the adrenalin which
happens involuntarily with each roar. By mid day I am looking for somewhere to escape. I
moved here in 1979 to create a quiet life. The Growlers have created a war zone. San
Juan County has a low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside). County residents are
routinely exposed 90 114 dBA (inside measurements) blasts of noise from Growler over
3216
(b)(6)
3217

I live on SE Lopez. The Navys refusal to publish a training schedule for Ault Field had
degraded my property values, use of my property and my health. When the Growlers are
flying the natural sounds of wind, wave, and birds are muted or impossible to hear. I now
garden with ear protection, sleep with ear protection, and walk in the woods with ear
protection. Picnics and dinners with friends are now limited because we never know
when the next blast will come or if FCLP will take over the evening. Residents of San
noise from training. Surveys show that loss of control over ones life is one of the most
(b)(6)
3218

I live on SE Lopez. Sleep has never been a problem for me until the Growlers. Now the
days are filled with so much tension and waiting for the noise to end its takes hours to
get to sleep . And that is after the noise finally stops. I find it astounding that the Navy can
inflict this on us and refuses (for reasons of National Security!) to even give us a
schedule or tell us when it will end. So we wait every single day and night from half
hour to half hour for the noise to end. I am now convinced that noise is a weapon and we
the taxpayers are the guinea pigs. San Juan County residents regularly experience
(b)(6)
3219
Lopez, WA 98261
Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything we have experienced. All the reasons we
have chosen to live here are being degraded by the constant noise, vibration and
intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County a no significant
impact area. This is clearly false. - The Navy should conduct continuous sound
Assessments. Also if you had children, you would not like these LOUD OBNOXIOUS
planes flying over your head. Try to put a child to bed when you are being bombarded by
flights WAY PAST bedtime. It is bad enough for adults, but for infants and children in
school, flights are happening way way way too late. Are you using us as Guinea Pigs to
see if the noise is affecting psychological health of a populous, then yes is the answer.
We in the San Juans are not your lab beaker, it is time to get real and stop this nonsense.
Try to think when one of your pilots decides how fun it is to suddenly gain altitude and the
back jets are shooting right at you....NO IT IS NOT COMFORTABLE IN THE LEAST !!!!!!!
and ear shattering and one must quickly cover their ears, and I am an Old Fart with
hearing loss, not some small child with delicate ears. I have seen children cry because
the noise hurt their ears so badly.....not OK what is being perpetuated by you, the Navy,
to your own citizens---- Thanks you for listening, IOPE YOU HEAR---(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3220
, WA 98155
Spotted owl is on the endangered species list. Noise pollution will force owls from their
habitats. And cause hearing damage to the birds. Electromagnetic radiation will also
force birds from their habitat and cause unknown damage to the spotted owl and their
offspring.
(b)(6)
3221

I live on SE Lopez Island. I believe that the EIS as presented is not following the Council
on Environmental Quality regulations. The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States:
The alternatives include variations of the following factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to
be purchased 2. Number of aircraft assigned per squadron 3. Number of land-based
all reasonable alternatives . We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just
Growler aircraft have trained in other locations. Basing training at NASWI is essentially
declaring that San Juan County and the surrounding communities are collateral damage
for the Pivot to the East. Our lives, our economy, our environment, our National
monument, our property values and the very reasons we have chosen to live here are
being disregarded and degraded. The real impacts on San Juan County and the
surrounding communities must be studied and weigh into the equation before more
militarization occurs.
(b)(6)
3222

January 9, 2015 I have lived on the West Shoreline of Lopez Island (walking distance
North of the Village) since 2007. I moved my residence here from Central Whidbey (and
still operate a business in Coupeville) because the noise and fumes of the Navy jets
became more and more intolerable during the 25 years I lived on Whidbey and because
after visiting the Spencer Spit, Fisherman Bay and Lopez Village areas of Lopez Island
many times for over 20 years I ever once heard the jet noise that has become over the
past 12 -18 months a regular (and on some days an "all-day") nuisance. When I resided
on Whidbey, I was reminded repeatedly by Navy personnel and by supporters of the OLF
operations that I knew or should have known about the jet noise because OLF Field was
being used for "touch and go" practice when I bought my home near Ebey's Landing in
1988. Of course, that was not true because touch and go practices were never conducted
during the weekends that I visited my property before buying it. Further the Island County
Noise Disclosure Code that now mandates disclosure of the Navy jet noise at OLF field
was not enacted until 1992. Before purchasing my property on Lopez Island in
September 2006, I confirmed with neighbors of my property and my realtor that Navy Jet
Noise was an extremely rare occurrence. No Noise Disclosures of any kind were in the
San Juan County Code like there has been in Island County since 1992 to warn me of
the potential for Navy Jet Noise from OLF Field in Coupeville or Ault Field in Oak Harbor.
I was shocked when I heard the first Navy Jet fly over my home back in 2008 after I move
to Lopez Island, but the noisy Navy Jet flights were few and far between. Those flights
have become a daily occurrence despite the fact that that the Navy has never included
me or my property with notice of any environmental impact meetings or scoping sessions
until late 2014. If a previous environmental impact study has ever been conducted with
respect to impacts on the northwestern portion of Lopez Island where I live (the Navy
claims it conducted studies in 2005 and 2012) there is no way those studies could have
accurately reported the Navy Noise that I have been subjected to over the past few years
and in particular the past 18 months when the growlers started rumbling nearly every day
and the Navy jets started regularly flying low and loud directly over my home. I have been
told that until this past year the Navy had never considered or studied noise and pollution
impacts of its jets based at Ault Field, which brings into question the validity of any
previous environmental impact studies. Until all required environmental impact studies
concerning the impacts of all Navy jets now flying in and out of Ault and OLF Fields have
been conducted and analyzed by unbiased experts, al flights from these two Fields
should cease. The detrimental affects of these jet flights (not to mention the substantially
greater impacts caused by the recent introduction of the Growlers should be obvious to
anyone (not just an environmentalist who values nature) who takes the time to visit Lopez
Island and hear, see and study these impacts. What the Navy is doing to the National
Conservation Area that is now the San Juan Islands, and Lopez Island in particular, is an
environmental disaster and a disgrace, and affront to all who have chosen to live and visit
this area. Besides the unacceptable environmental impacts caused by the noise and
carbon pollution caused by the Navy jets flying in and out of Ault and OLF Fields, the
audible noise of these jets as they warm up on the tarmac at Ault Field and fly in the
vicinity of Lopez Island, is now having impacting the values of all real properties on Lopez
Island and leaves any one who wishes to sell their properties liable for damages if the
seller voluntarily neglects to disclose the noise and other impacts of the Navy jets flying in
and out of Ault and OLF Fields and over Lopez Island. To my knowledge, the economic
affects of these impacts on the value of real properties (and some businesses) on Lopez
Island has never been studied or even considered. All the reasons I have chosen to buy
property and to live here on Lopez island are being degraded by the constant noise,
vibration and intrusive over-flights of the Navy jets flying in and out of Ault and OLF
Fields, especially the recent introduction of the "Darth Vadar" Growlers and their low
growling groan that shakes my home and unsettles me and my pets nearly every day,
from morning to night. The Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no significant
impact area. This is clearly false. As mentioned above, these analysis in the 2005 and
2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) did not adequately consider the impacts
on Lopez Island, if it considered these impacts at all and those EAs clearly do not support
the findings. In the EAs The Navy must enhance the analysis and demonstrate no
significant environmental impacts in order to support proposed actions in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the necessary studies are conducted, it will be
very surprising that the current activities of the Navy jets will be allowed, let alone be
justified to INCREASE in the number of Growlers permitted to flying in and out of Ault
Field. We need an EIS that considers all of the following: A. Conduct continuous sound
measurements in the southern portion of San Juan County, and Lopez Island in particular
over a 90-day period when the Navy conducts its activities at both Ault and OLF Field in
the manner conducted over the past 90 days. B. The study needs to include C-Weighted
sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. C. The EIS analysis should incorporate
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. E. The EIS should address the
health effects of Startle Reactions. Medical surveys. F. The EIS should address the
issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include notifying citizens in advance of all
Navy jets and in particular Growler training operations at either airfield including AULT
and OLF Fields and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). G. The EIS should specifically
shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. H. The EIS
should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the residents in the study area including
San Juan County and in particular Lopez Island, should document the extent of this
problem. I. There is no reason why the EIS should not include an Alternative that would
base Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. . Section 1500.14 of the Council on
an already significantly affected area is unjustified. There are certainly other locations
that are not National Conservation Areas where Growler training and basing can happen.
other than NAS Whidbey Island or any place in vicinity of the San Juan Islands. J. The
3222
inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. K. The San Juan County Comprehensive
Plan states, "...the islands are places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic
retirees. Visitors who have experienced the jet noise and have stated that they will never
return and residents are moving away to avoid the impacts of this noise. Continuation of
the current level of jet noise, let alone increasing the number of jets, will continue to
impacts throughout San Juan County. L. The EIS should conduct all analysis from the
2012 Environmental Assessments. Finally, it is an insult to the residents and property
owners of the San Juan Islands and to the visitors to these Islands to allow this Scoping
Process to do what has has been done before: rely on the Navy to prepare EISs and
Environmental Assessments, paid for by our taxes, and then expect individuals citizens
(many of whom have limited funds and assets) to spend their hard earned income to fund
studies to disprove the claims of NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT by the NAVY. Thank
you for considering my scoping comments. (b)(6)
Lopez
Island, WA 98261
3222
(b)(6)
3223
Lopez, WA
Having been in the San Juan's for 30 years....and having come for piece and quiet, I'm
saddened that you couldn't figure out a "fly Quiet" program. As a former military pilot I like
the sound of freedom, as an airline and private pilot I practice noise reduction policies
when ever possible. I know the approaches, I'm familiar with the class C. I have to
believe that when my dishes rattle off the shelf at Frost Island during IFR.... It's the
controllers allowing wide (15 mile) base turns..... A lot of noise would be mitigated by
higher gliding turn ons with or as a substitute " tighter patters" Please reduce the noise
over Lopez. (b)(6)
FROST ISLAND HOMEOWNERS PRES.
(b)(6)
3224

I live on SE Lopez. As I write this NASWI has just delivered its first blast of the day
118.3 dBC (inside measurement) at 8:42am., Friday January 9, 2015. Please note that
the 2005 and 2012 EAs declared San Juan County an area of no adverse impact.
Astounding. But more importantly this statement should invalidate both EAs. The Navys
noise metrics are clearly flawed. Decisions were made to bring in the Growlers based on
lack of real measurements. Computer generated noise contours are obviously inaccurate.
This EIS should not use the information gathered in either the 2005 0r 2012 EAs. Start
over! The Growlers were based here on false premises. They should stop flying until real
data is gathered. For the moment, I want the Navy to implement all feasible measures to
reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on citizens including San Juan
County. In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Council on
(b)(6)
3225
, WA 98155
The military's money and resources should be put into fighting cyberwarefare--which is
the bigger threat. We need the military to hire more computers specialist and focus on
computer hacking. Not into flyover missions.
(b)(6)
3226
lopez, WA 98261
My wife and I have a small business sharing the joy of horses on Lopez Island and in La
Conner. Every time the jets are active we are saturated by the disharmonic rumble of jet
noise.This noise is not just loud and ground shaking low it is supremely annoying, worse
than rapp worse than jack hammers chainsaw or disco cranked up to speaker blowing
maximum. The horses get Nervous which is dangerous. We can't hear each other and
our participants can not hear our instructions. When the jets fly over we have to hold our
ears till they are gone, but riding a horse we can not safely cover our ears. then there
comes another jet. How are we going to continue with our business when it is hazardous
to be out side?
(b)(6)
3227
Victoria, WA 98382
I am responding to a confirmation from the US Navy that Canadians being affected by the
sound of the EA-18G Growlers are welcome to submit comments. The simple fact is, it is
startling to me that my home windows shake and I worry if there is an earthquake each
time one of those jets take off (or whatever causes the sound). Please PLEASE do not
bring more of those jets to Whidby. I don't know what else to say... but thank you for
listening. PS, I am located in Victoria, BC, Canada and since the form has no Canadian
option I had to use a WA zip code. My apologies for any confusion but please don't forget
us when designing future comment forms where our input is welcome.
(b)(6)
3228
Victoria, V8T2S7
I live in Victoria, where we hear the Growler rumblings. This week, it has been almost
constant. I understand you must do exercises to train personnel but it is getting to be too
much. Please do not increase the number of planes or frequency of training exercises. I
am a Canadian who understands your needs to train your military. But I hope you
understand that you are also impacting our quality of life with your training exercises.
(b)(6)
3229
Victoria, WA 11111
Good day from British Columbia. I've lived in Victoria my whole life and heard the
'rumbling' for many years. The frequency of the noise has increased and for longer
periods of time from 8am up until at least 8pm. This noise pollution was acceptable until a
few years ago but is growing in number of instances and decibels. Low cloud cover
seems to have more of an affect on the noise and I probably speak on the behalf of most
residents of coastal Vancouver Island that any further expansion of the airfield and its use
is not supported. Please consider noise reduction possibilities, departure times/days or
other options to limit, reduce or remove the growing amount of noise crossing in Canada
(and for the residents of Washington State too.)
(b)(6)
3230

I live on SE Lopez Island. The Growler noise has created a war zone environment. All the
reasons I chose to live here are degraded by the constant roaring and blasting. Its
inconceivable that the U.S. government has just created a National Monument in San
Juan County based on the amazing peace and quiet and the pristine environment and
now the Navy is taking that all away. Our county and our region has been acknowledged
as a world destination a place to come and take a breath from the jangle of the world.
Now that the Navy has created a war zone here our tourist economy will suffer. Its not
so pleasant to walk in the woods, sit on the beaches or kayak with 10-11 hours of roaring
and blasting going on. The noise from the Growlers is so bad now its hard for me to
imagine what 36 more Growlers will contribute. The San Juan County Comprehensive
Plan states, "...the islands are places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic
retirees. Some visitors who have experienced the jet noise have stated that they will
Counties.
(b)(6)
3231

I live on SE Lopez Island. Living with the noise from NASWI and studying this issue for
the last two years I have concluded that the Growlers were based here under false
premises. Huge areas of information were omitted or not considered. START OVER! The
2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments (EAs) are deficient in the following areas:
consequences This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not
rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012
(b)(6)
3232
Seattle, WA 98105
My husband and I own property at (b)(6)
. at the southend of Lopez Island. We
have owned the property since October 2013. We are frequently on the island and the
noise has been alarming from the Growler jets flying in vicinity It seems there are more
flights than ever. We chose to buy property and Lopez and intent to move there full time
at the end of 2015. We chose the islands because of the quiet and peacefulness. All the
and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County a no
significant impact area. This is clearly false. Even our dogs and cat react adversely to
the noise and are scared and cower. When I'm working in the garden or outside, the
noise is incredibly loud. The Navy should take responsibility for the noise and vibrations
they are creating and study this thoroughly and take action to avoid the impact of the high
noise and many numbers of daily flights. Often I hear them at 10-15 min. apart much of
the day. The impact on human and animal health should also be noted, some of which
include stress, sleep disturbance, and interruption of tranquility. There should also be
more done to lessen the noise of the Growler engines. I also do not understand why
there needs to be so many flights. The cost of these operations must be monumental. As
an educator, I would like to see money direction from the many flights of the Growler to
education. Once I looked forward to retirement on Lopez. Now realizing these Growlers
fly constantly, I may have spent far too much money to buy property there when I have to
deal with the constant noise. It's very disturbing and disheartening. - The Navy should
(b)(6)
3233

Everyone agrees that China's air quality with it's smog and pollution is a huge problem.
People needing to wear masks. People with asthma, suffering greatly. The amount of
pollution from the growler jet project is against everything we are trying to do to keep our
air clean in WA state. The Navy currently has 80 Growler jets operating out of Whidbey
Island, but that number is expected to grow to as high as 118. These electronic warfare
jets, the loudest ever built (150 decibels), each burn 1,304 gallons/hour, producing 12.5
metric tons of CO2 hourly or 23% more than the annual CO2 emissions of a Washington
State citizen. We do not want to be like China. We want to be able to breathe clean air.
Do not polite our skies with your CO2 emissions.
(b)(6)
3234
Nordland, WA 98358
The environmental impact of the Growlers is not known. Too often, too late, we find that
invasion of natural habitats has devastating effects. Why not err on the side of caution,
the environment and affected residents and find a less disruptive place or way for the
Navy to conduct questionable exercises.
(b)(6)
3235
Goose Creek, SC 29445

I have owned vacation property on Frost Island (near Lopez Island) since 1978. As a
retired naval officer I am a strong supporter of the contribution the squadrons at NASWI
make to our national defense. I do not support the idea of relocating these forces to
another location, but I firmly believe that the USN must put forth a good-faith effort to
mitigate what has become a significant impact on island residents. Furthermore, I believe
that the moral responsibility to engage in such an effort transcends the findings of the
EIS. As a professional in the field of acoustics and noise control I understand both the
importance and the limitations of the EIS process; as a military professional I understand
the priorities of mission, safety, and money. It is incumbent upon the Navy to look beyond
the numbers, recognize the impact NASWI operations are now having on the surrounding
community, and search for ways to achieve a balance between operational imperatives
and impacts on the civilian community.
(b)(6)
3236
anacortes, WA 98221
(b)(6)
Anacortes, WA 98221 (b)(6)

January 8, 2015 EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508
Attn: Code EV21/SS Via Electronic Mail Re: U.S. Navy Environmental Impact Statement
for the EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Dear
Project Manager: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the scope of the proposed
Environmental Impact Statement named above. The proposed federal action has an
enormous impact on the lives and well-being of thousands of people living in the area of
the Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, and it is appropriate for the Department of
the Navy to take a hard look at those impacts as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). On January 3, 2014 I submitted comments on the scoping that was
then taking place. Those comments are still germane. I will not repeat them here but will
attach them to this letter and incorporate them here by this reference. Though the range
of issues that must be addressed in the EIS remains quite large, I want here to focus my
comments on two aspects of the proposed action that are not adequately treated in the
EA and must be properly addressed in the EIS. 1. The analysis of noise in the
Environmental Assessment is inadequate. The scope of the noise analysis in the EIS
should be much broader. There are several ways in which the noise analysis is
inadequate. First, and perhaps most vividly, the presentations in the EA and its Appendix
C are entirely the product of automated measurements and calculations, as contrasted
with information gathered from the human beings whose environment is being assessed.
For example, I live on Guemes Island where the NAS noise is a frequent annoyance. But
insofar as the EA is concerned, since my home is not within the 60dB range, the
annoyance my family, neighbors, and I experience counts for nothing in the EA. Thus,
from the outset the analysis elides the impacts on the environment of thousands of
people in my position. I know from direct discussions that many of my neighbors share
this annoyance. If the EIS seeks to honestly state the impact of the proposed action, it
must consider these impacts. Second, and similarly, the EA rather than investigating the
level of annoyance caused by the NAS noise, presumes instead to tell us how annoyed
we are, or should be. EA Figure 3-1 graphs high annoyance against noise for
populations foreign to the NAS operations and to other conditions in northern Puget
Sound. Again, from personal experience I know that many people are highly annoyed
by the NAS noise even though they do not live within the calculated 60 dB shapes on the
EA maps. The assumptions driving the EA analysis are demonstrably incorrect, at least in
this area. Again, an honest assessment of the annoyance level of the population requires
direct contact with that population, not simply resort to mechanical measurements and
laboratory studies conducted elsewhere. Third, the noise assessment completely
disregards the location of the environment in which the assessment is taking place. The
EA treats the noise factor in this otherwise relatively quiet corner of Washington State no
differently than it would if the proposed action were taking place in an urban environment
or nearby another airport. We are told (EA page 3-11) that: Noise potentially becomes an
issue when it interferes with our daily activities. Ambient background noise in
metropolitan, urbanized areas typically varies from 60 to 70 dB and can be as high as 80
dB or greater; quiet suburban neighborhoods experience ambient noise levels of
(b)(6)
approximately 45 to 50 dB. Most of western Skagit County, the San Juans, and northern
Whidbey Island would be even quieter than a suburban neighborhood, except in, say,
Oak Harbor and maybe Anacortes and Coupeville. But the EA chooses instead to
measure noise effects as though metropolitan, urbanized standards are the relevant test.
The EIS has to do a better job of accepting the realities of where the proposed action,
and its impacts, will take place. Otherwise it is stating the environmental impact in some
hypothetical, other place, which falls short of what NEPA requires. Fourth, the averaging
of noise over a 24 hour period masks its true impact. Life is not experienced as an
average of 24 hour periods. Rather, events like a minute or two of loud jet noises that
interrupt conversations, scare animals, and lend to a stressful environment are not
attenuated by the ensuing quiet. All that can be said about the ensuing quiet is that things
would be even worse without it. There is an entire literature devoted to discussing and
dispelling The Flaw of Averages. You can Google it. The classic example is the
engineer who approaches a river known to average one meter deep. Half way across and
up only to her knees she takes one more step and drowns in a two meter deep
mid-stream trough. One can march through the senses illustrating the fallacy: * Put
someones hand in very hot water for a while. Not so long as to be permanently
damaging, but long enough to be annoying and disruptive. Now average the various
impacts of the experience over 24 hours and tell the victim its of no consequence
because the average is so much less than the experience itself. * Force someone to
stare at the sun for a while. Not so long as to blind them, but long enough to be
unsettling. Now average the radiation impact on their eyes over 24 hours and tell them
the event was insignificant. * Feed someone a pepper that burns the dickens out of their
mouth and tongue. Average that impact over the ensuing 24 hours to tell them the
experience must be tolerated every day because the average is so small. * Take a whiff
of tear gas and tell your lungs its nothing since averaged over 24 hours there is
practically no gas to burn them and that, thus, it is acceptable to inflict this on them every
day. It is no different with the ears. Sudden and loud sounds, when uninvited, are bad.
And averaging them over 24 hours is just a mathematical exercise. It doesnt decrease
the badness of the event. All it suggests is that if the noise continued for 24 hours things
would be even worse. Fifth, why 24 hours? Why not 12 or 36? The arbitrariness of the
choice reveals the arbitrariness of the averaging exercise itself. Sixth and finally, this
arbitrariness suggests that a point made in my earlier, attached, comments deserves
repetition here. Does the 10 dB penalty really and effectively do anything at all? The
logic behind the penalty might seem superficially appealing. But does it really reduce or
describe environmental impacts? Is there any noise that doesnt take place as some
sort of tradeoff because of it? What impacts does it really measure, much less mitigate?
In fact, the EA essentially admits the penalty is meaningless window dressing. There is
no indication in the EA or elsewhere that the penalty has an effect. It seems that without
the penalty the iso-dB shapes on the maps might be a bit smaller, but nowhere is some
limit of bigness of the shapes suggested. So why not a more generous (or, depending
on your point of view, harsh) penalty of 20% or 30% or more? It really doesnt matter in
the end. If this is honestly to be a tool of the EIS, then the EIS must lay out a thoughtful
assessment of this aspect of its noise analysis and demonstrate that it lends somehow to
controlling and reducing the noise which is, after all, the impact on the human
environment that is under analysis. In sum, the EIS must do a much better job than the
EA does if it is to provide an impact statement that is more than sterile, arbitrary, and
irrelevant to the proposal under scrutiny. To actually inform and guide decisions about the
3236
proposed action, a real description of the environmental impact of the actual noise on real
humans subject to it is required. 2. The EIS should broaden the consideration of
cumulative impacts of other developments in the area. The law is clear that in a situation
like this the EIS cannot look merely at the incremental increase in environmental impact
from the Proposed Action. NEPA regulations require a federal agency to examine the
cumulative impacts of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. 1508.25(c)(3). The regulations
define cumulative impact as: [T]he incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts
can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a
period of time. 40 C.F.R. 1508.7; see also City of Carmel v. DOT, 123 F.3d 1142, 1160
(9th Cir. 1997) (The duty to discuss cumulative impacts in an Environmental Impact
Statement is mandatory.) This is particularly germane here, where other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions of enormous significance abound. This area
is under immense pressure to accommodate industrialization on a scale it has never
seen before. As NEPA appropriately requires, the expansion of operations at a military
base must be considered in the context of this industrialization. Now, across British
Columbia, Oregon, and Washington there are active proposals for at least sixteen huge
energy projects: * Seven new or expanded coal export terminals capable of moving an
additional 128 million metric tons of coal annually. * Three new or expanded oil pipelines
capable of carrying more than 1.5 million barrels per day. * At least six new natural gas
pipelines capable of carrying 11.2 billion cubic feet per day. To its credit, the EA
inventories an impressive list of Navy activities in this region, though it tends to discount
the impacts. But strikingly absent is consideration of these energy facility proposals
whose impact on the human environment has enormous potential. Most specifically, the
Ferndale Coal Export Terminal presents environmental impacts that accumulate with
those of the NAS. In categories such as air quality, spill possibility, noise, carbon
emissions, wildlife impacts, vehicle traffic, archaeological impacts, surface and ground
water impacts, HAZMAT concerns, and sociological impacts the EIS should consider the
cumulative impacts of the proposed action in the context of those of the proposed
Ferndale project. This area enjoys a reputation for leadership in clean energy and
environmental policy. Among other achievements, the region is home to a path-breaking
carbon tax, cities pledging steep reductions in carbon emissions, and abundant
renewable energy. The EIS should evaluate the proposed action in this context and
accordingly state the impacts on the Northwests aspiration as an environmental leader. It
is not acceptable for the EIS to treat this region no differently from already industrialized
regions of the country or the world. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the
scope of the EIS. Again, I attach and incorporate my comments on the last round of this
exercise. Very truly yours, /s/ Carl Ullman Carl Ullman 5162 West Shore Road
Anacortes, WA 98221 541 892 0410 bullman3@earthlink.net January 3, 2014 EA-18G
Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic 6506 Hampton
Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Re: U.S. Navy Environmental Impact Statement for the
EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Dear EA-18G
Project Manager: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the scope of the proposed
Environmental Impact Statement named above. (Please note that when I tried to submit
these comments electronically to meet the January 3 filing date, your web site reported
an undescribed problem. I will continue to attempt to file them there in order to meet the
January 3 filing date.) The proposed federal action has an enormous impact on the lives
3236
and well-being of thousands of people living in the area of the Naval Air Station (NAS)
Whidbey Island, and it is appropriate for the Department of the Navy to take a hard look
at those impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Though
the range of issues that must be addressed in the EIS is quite large, I want here to
attention to four aspects of the proposed EIS that must not be given short shrift, much
less ignored, in the EIS. 1. The baseline for assessment cannot be just the incremental
addition of Growlers and associated personnel, facilities, etc., but must be the overall
impact of the operations at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. The law is clear that in a
situation like this the EIS cannot look merely at the incremental increase in environmental
impact from the Proposed Action. NEPA regulations require a federal agency to examine
the cumulative impacts of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. 1508.25(c)(3). The regulations
define cumulative impact as: [T]he incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts
can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a
period of time. 40 C.F.R. 1508.7; see also City of Carmel v. DOT, 123 F.3d 1142, 1160
(9th Cir. 1997) (The duty to discuss cumulative impacts in an Environmental Impact
Statement is mandatory.) The development over time of operations at the NAS is
described perfectly in this rule and its judicial applications. In order to take a hard look
at cumulative effects in an EIS, an agency must: (1) catalog past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future projects in a particular area, 40 C.F.R. 1508.7; and, (2) provide a
useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past, present and future projects.
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800, 810 (9th Cir. 1999). An
EIS must contain some quantified or detailed information because [w]ithout such
information, neither courts nor the public . . . can be assured that the [agency] provided
the hard look required of a cumulative impacts analysis. Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain,
137 F.3d at 1379; see also Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, 2004 WL 2406557, __
F.3d __ *3-7 (rejecting cumulative effects discussion that was only a general catalogue of
actions without an analysis of effects). The courts have provided useful, mandatory
guidance on this point in the similar context of accumulated impacts of timber harvest. In
Lands Council v. Powell, 379 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2004), the court rejected an EIS
noting that although it generally describe[d] the past timber harvests, gives the total acres
cut, with types of cutting, per decade, and asserts that timber harvests have contributed
to the environmental problems in the Project area . . . there [was] no catalog of past
projects and no discussion of how those projects (and differences between the projects)
have harmed the environment . . . . Instead, the Final Environmental Impact Statement
contains only vague discussion of the general impact of prior timber harvesting, and no
discussion of the environmental impact from past projects on an individual basis. . . . The
parallels to the Growlers at NAS Whidbey are plain. The accumulation of impacts,
particularly noise, as the NAS has developed and expanded its activities, must be
considered because, after all, that is what the environment and the citizenry actually
experiencenot just the incremental impact of additional Growlers. 2. The EIS must
include in its noise analysis not just the drawing of closed shapesso many decibels
within this shape, so many more or less within that shape, etc.but must analyze the
real impacts on real people, domestic fowl and livestock, and wild species. It will not be
enough for the EIS to determine the noise levels at different locations and to declare that
to be the impact. That is far too crabbed an interpretation of the word. The impact of
noise, at least for EIS purposes, is not manifest on paper, on a map, or in a decibel
3236
meter. It is manifest in the real world by its effects on living beings subjected to the noise.
Thus it is not sufficient to determine that within area X the noise will be Y decibels. The
EIS must contain sufficient detail so as to be useful to the decisionmaker in deciding
whether, or how, to alter the program to lessen the cumulative impacts. Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800, 810-11 (9th Cir. 1999). To be useful in
the required way the EIS must explain how the identified noise levels actually affect the
living beings subjected to the noise. Failing this would be equivalent to an EIS saying the
impact of a proposed federal action is, say, the removal of a specified amount of the
oxygen from the environment of a meeting room without informing the decisionmaker as
to what resultant mortality can be expected. A decision that meets NEPA requirements
requires sufficient information in the EIS. In a similar vein, it has been proposed in the
past that one measure of impact of noise from the NAS can be the percentage of the
population that complains to authorities about the noise. This is hardly a reliable, or even
a useful, metric. Why would one commit the time and effort to complaining to authorities
when one has no reasonable expectation that the complaint will result in action? Indeed,
one very purpose of the EIS is to allow the Department to rebuff such complaints by
saying the Department has already taken a hard look at the issue. If the Department
seriously wants to measure public dissatisfaction (or its absence) it cannot just wait for
the phone to ring. It must be active in the affected community and arrange to visit people
in their homes and properties where the noise impact is manifest and discuss with them
their level of dissatisfaction as an impact of the Proposed Action. Similarly, does the
10-dB penalty really and effectively compensate for the effects of generating loud noise
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m? The logic behind the penalty is, I admit, at least
superficially apparent. But who does it really help? What noise does it really reduce?
What impacts does it really mitigate? Or is it just an ineffective gesture that in fact does
not actually benefit anyone on the ground? The EIS must lay out a thoughtful assessment
of this aspect of its noise analysis. 3. The EIS should reflect a sincere effort to learn why
so many local people are so upset about the noise from the NAS. I am certain the
Department is aware that quite a number of people are veryfor lack of a better
wordangry about the NAS noise. That anger is plainly a function of the environmental
impact of NAS operations, both existing and proposed. The Department, in order to
inform the decisionmaker appropriately, must analyze why that anger exists. Are these
people simply complainers and busy bodies? Or are they experiencing real impacts from
the noise that ought to be mitigated and not exacerbated by the Proposed Action? If the
latter, what are those genuine impacts and what can be done to mitigate them? To
properly inform the decisionmaker the EIS must accurately and honestly portray this
aspect of community sentiment and the roots of that sentiment. 4. Some expressions in
the Scoping Meeting Welcome document come dangerously close to turning the NEPA
process on its head. The purpose is to decide whether the Proposed Action is compatible
with a healthy environment, not to adjust the environment to be compatible with the
Proposed Action. It is troubling that the Welcome document talks in terms of areas of
noise impact where some land use controls are required and degrees of land use
control. This can be read to suggest that the Proposed Action will go forward and
existing land uses will be adjusted to accommodate it. Such adjustments are not part of
the Proposed Action so they will not be evaluated in the EIS. What the EIS must evaluate
is adjustments to the Proposed Action to accommodate existing land uses, not vice
versa. The wording of the Welcome document is very troubling in this regard. The EIS
should make clear what is intended regarding land use controls and should not provide
3236
information to the decisionmaker that suggests he or she can consider land use controls
that are not explicitly put forth as part of the Proposed Action. Thank you for this
opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIS. I look forward to continuing to
participate in the decision making process. Very truly yours, /s/ (b)(6)
3236
(b)(6)
3237
Victoria, WA V8N 4G3

I am from Victoria BC Clicked Washington State as no option for BC. Victoria may in fact
be the most affected populated area as many others are sheltered from the sound by
islands. Please consider my feedback. I am very concerned about the testing and flying
of the Growler aircraft due to its environmental impact on the area. It is a large area that
extends at least as far as Victoria and I assume affects other cities, towns, islands and
possibly in the vicinity. The impact from sound is to disturbing to humans for sure and
may impact many other species in the area. I hope that more innovative approaches and
effective aircraft or methods can be developed to build a peaceful world and
environmentally sustainable. Sometimes smaller is better.
3238
victoria,
I live on southern Vancouver Island. The noise from the operations of the naval air station
on Whidbey Island has been a matter of concern to many people here. I am disappointed
to learn today for the first time - the last day for comments! - that comments are even
possible because the US Navy apparently has no interest at all in the concerns of anyone
on Vancouver Island and does not bother to consult with us or keep us informed. In fact
the loud rumbling noise from the base has been a matter of concern and fear here for
years - and it has gotten worse and worse. I completely oppose the addition of more of
these noisy aircraft - so loud windows rattle and houses shake. Why are we not included
in information sessions? We are affected by your activities! Do us the courtesy of
explaining what is going on! And the further courtesy of reducing your noise! This is a
heavily populated area - why not conduct these training sessions or practices somewhere
where fewer people will suffer daily from them.
(b)(6)
3239
Victoria, WA V8R 2V2

I live in Victoria, Canada. The noise coming from the Growlers here in my house is similar
to that I experienced many years ago watching the movie "Earth Quake". Special loud
sub woofers were installed in the movie theatres. This morning at Mt. Doug park we
experienced a very high level of noise rumbles. These aircraft are having a serious
impact on quality of life here in Victoria.
(b)(6)
3240

The proposed expansion of NASWI to be studied in this latest EIS is a huge change for
this area. Every aspect of this change needs to be looked at in a much more thorough
manner than all previous assessments. The following is a list of questions I think should
be answered in this document: How does fuel reach NASWI and what risks are
associated with its transport and storage? What is/will be done to mitigate these risks?
What will be done to deal with increased car and truck traffic on the already overtaxed
Deception Pass Bridge and Highway 20? Increases to the population of Oak Harbor,
surrounding communities, and the base itself will require more water. The Skagit River
system is already fully allocated and struggling to meet the current demands of people
and fish. Also drilling wells on Whidbey Island has its limitations due to salt water
intrusion. How do you propose to meet this need? Similarly, there will be more storm
water runoff and sewage. What will be done to mitigate this impact? Puget Sound and
the Straits are already stressed by population growth, increased shipping, and a number
of proposals to increase transshipment of oil and coal through these waters. What will
this proposal add to that stress? What studies will the Navy undertake so that we can
know as much as possible how this proposal will add to these stresses? Aircraft noise
impacts a wide area from both over flights and engine testing at the base. This document
should include much more extensive study of these impacts than has been done in all
previous studies. The scoping document says, An assessment of non-auditory health
effects will be conducted through a comprehensive literature review. This is entirely
inadequate. I would suggest that you need to undertake a comprehensive study of the
health effects. The University of Washington, School of Public Health could be contracted
to perform this work. It should include surveying the effected population throughout the
area. At the very least, a study needs to be undertaken at schools to quantify the
interference to normal school activities. Also related to the noise issue, the document
refers to areas of noise impact where some land use controls are required. Since these
land use controls have not existed in the past or have not been enforced, what is the
Navy willing to do for impacted land owners? At many other locations, there have been
programs to buy up effected properties. On December 19, 2014, Congressman Rick
Larsen sent out an email listing a number of ideas to address the noise impacts. These
ideas related to reducing noise coming from engine testing, reducing engine noise,
reducing future flights, expanded sound monitoring, etc. All of these items need to be
evaluated in the context of the EIS. The alternatives listed in the scoping document are
far too limited. They should include alternate technologies that could be used to fulfill this
mission. Alternative locations should be considered as well; especially for the carrier
landing training which is probably the biggest source of noise. NEPA requires that the
EIS process cannot look only at the incremental impacts, but must also look at the
cumulative impacts of the Navys actions as well as those of other agencies Federal or
nonfederal. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the scope of this EIS.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3241
Victoria, V8S 1P4

Our desire is to add to the scope of your environmental assessment by commenting on
the impact of the EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations from the perspective of residents of
Victoria, B.C.. The intensity and volume of the environmental noise from the aircraft has
certainly increased in the recent past. It is now such that house vibrations occur regularly
and any increase would certainly impact quality of life in this region. Your impact
assessment should include a wider circle than originally planned. P.S. We aren't just flaky
draft dodgers. My father-in-law is a retired US Navy officer.
(b)(6)
3242

Again, thank you for being there to support our freedom. That said, Whidbey Is. Naval Air
Station is not the place for the EA-18G Growler Operations. The noise generated by
these aircraft is like a constant thunderstorm both inside and outside one's otherwise
peaceful quiet home in the San Juan Islands. People elect to choose where they want to
live based upon many criteria, and peace and quiet is one of them. The San Juan Islands
is one of those special places, otherwise it would not be so expensive and so heavily
taxed. The US Federal Government considers the archipelago a Marine Sanctuary. A
unique place indeed, to be protected from outside influence as much as possible. The
EA-18G does not fit within this objective. Please relocate these aircraft to a more suitable
air base. In addition, current and on-going noise level tests should be conducted in San
Juan County, especially the south end of Lopez Island. Life threatening is a poor example
as a benchmark. If one can't have peace and quite, like it existed before the EA-18G,
then there is a new problem, and that is the introduction of the EA-18G. Who sets the
stand or thresholds of tolerance or injury? Let's not make this into a dogfight; we are
humans in the same country with similar needs. Regards, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3243
Victoria, V8S1T1
I strongly oppose the operation of these new Growler jets in their current location. I live
across the water in Victoria BC Canada and it feels like these things are taking off in our
city/country/backyard. The noise is unbelievable. Last night alone from 6:00 pm on for
several hours they kept going. What kind of operation is this that it could not be moved to
a more remote/less disruptive location? We all live in this part of the world for it's peaceful
wonder (and for the most part quiet nature). Please consider moving these jets to another
location not so close to the general public.
(b)(6)
3244
Victoria BC Canada, WA 99999

I am a concerned citizen in nearby Vancouver Island Canada who is concerned with the
environmental impact of the growler tests on Whitbey island. The noise pollution is one
thing, but as I now understand it the vibrations are potentially going to be intensified and I
worry that this will have more adverse effects on human health and the environment in
the surrounding area that includes my community. Does the Navy know and understand
now what the implications are and if not why are you testing the potential on unwilling
subjects who haplessly live in the area? Beyond possible health effects, If the purpose is
to mess up enemy's electronic communications, what will happen to ours if the Navy
intensifies its tests? Also the vibrations are sufficient now to cause damage to residential
windows, so any intensification will cost us dearly. How much testing is really necessary?
And if needed why not conduct in a more remote area? I urge you to not subject citizens
to potential harm in the interest of political safety- more and more medical treatments for
heart and other disorders use electronic devices and can be dangerously affected by
magnetic forces so who is to say that your electronic signals will not have a similar
effect? Please reconsider before testing further. Thank you
(b)(6)
3245
Victoria, WA V8X 2X6

As a good neighbour policy, I would ask that you refrain from expanding the Growler
programme. PS Washington is NOT my state - I live in BC BUT that was not an option on
your form
(b)(6)
3246

I live in Port Townsend. Spending time at Deception Pass, I could not hear anything but
Navy jets taking off and landing. Terrifying sound, over and over, obliterating the natural
sounds of the environment, at times painful to the ears. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012
continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a one month
throughout the impacted areas including San Juan and Jefferson Counties. D. Sound
in training flights. Preferably, the training should be conducted in simulation, thereby
avoiding the situation altogether. Most Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3247
, V8R4A5
Thank your for giving me an opportunity to communicate to you how the sound and
movement emanating from Ault Field on Whidbey Island disrupts my family. I have two
young children who have been well trained in earthquake preparedness. Living in this
part of the world that is a necessity. But what is not a necessity is the confusion caused
by the rumbles and vibrations coming from airfield operations. Every time the noise
starts, which is very loud in our home, we can hear it over fans, television, conversation,
radio, the kids have a legitimate reaction and begin to panic that an earthquake is
beginning. We calm them and explain that it is not an earthquake, they always rightly ask,
"How can we tell the difference?". They are aged 10 and 7, how can they tell the
difference? We don't want them to become blas about earthquake preparedness. We
also don't want them to suffered the needless stressful reaction every time. We have
talked to many friends, family and neighbours about this and none of their thoughts and
opinions are positive. They share our frustration, confusion and anger. Why should we
have to endure this? Why should my young children have to endure this? Please
reconsidered expanding your program. The negative impact of the noise and vibrations is
already so invasive to our family's life.
(b)(6)
3248
Victoria, WA V8V 1N4

Terrible. Please invest in schools and education of girls in throughout the world.
Seriously! This is the best you come up with? And you teach your kids not to hit? Enough
already.
(b)(6)
3249

To Whom It May Concern, I moved to Lopez Island in 1985, drawn as many others were
and are to the beauty, the clean air, the peace. It was of the utmost importance to me to
join a community of people living in an intact ecosystem, and to have a profusion of
healthy non-humans all around me, as busy with their lives as I was with mine. Peace is
the ideal state. Silence is the projection of peace. If you ask people what comes to mind
when you say peace they will say quiet. The noise and over-flights from the Growlers
at Ault Field on Whidbey Island that I have experienced over the past year has been
worse than past noise from the air base. The environment is being severely degraded by
the constant noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The U.S. Navy
considers San Juan County a no-significant impact area but this assessment is
inaccurate: we are being significantly negatively impacted. The jet noise is awful. It
creates the opposite of an ideal state, stirring up feelings of irritation, annoyance, anxiety
and fear. It startles and clenches our hearts, we jump, and we remain jumpy; we want to
flee. Sea birds take to the air when a jet flies over the water; then land again. But how do
they feel? We know that they are disturbed because we can see the reaction. I can talk
and write; I can tell you how I feel. But all the other living beings who do not talk or write
are not necessarily free from any effects. And even when we can see a reaction, such as
in seabirds, we do not know what other subtle disruptions are continuing to shake and
tear the web of life. I am being negatively affected by the jet noise. It oppresses and
depresses me, with the acute consciousness of the noise as a projection of power. It
roars destructive power, uncaring, death-dealing, money-eating, polluting power. It
makes me feel sick in my home. SO LOUD, it interrupts my conversation with a loved
one. We have to wait. What is most important in my intimate life is not powerful enough to
not have to wait. Doesnt that say a lot? Every insect, every bird, and every mammal has
an intimate conversation that is important to them: the joyful song for winning a mate or
the low bleat to comfort a fawn. But we all have to wait to be heard, we are all not
powerful enough. I feel it in my heart, even when it is not loud. Its in the distance,
bouncing off the water and echoing in my chest. And again, I am conscious that although
I can write and talk, I am not the only being with a heart. -- The Navy should conduct
continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of San Juan County over a
one-month period. This study should include C Weighted sound measurements and
analysis in the EIS. -- The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise
-- Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or the Navy
afterburners in training flights. -- The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency
noise. The vibration is as annoying as the roaring. -- The EIS should carefully study the
health effects of the low frequency sounds on resident endangered salamander and other
amphibian populations. -- The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition to daily
averages. -- The EIS should consider health effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of Control,
Sleep Disturbance and Impacts on Children. -- The EIS should consider the health effects
of Startle Reaction on endangered migratory wildfowl, which have been shown to be
more susceptible to the effects of jet noise than other species. -- The EIS should fully
evaluate one or more alternatives that would base Growlers at a location other than NAS
Whidbey Island. -- The EIS should evaluate noise mitigation measures such as
minimizing flight routes over or near populated areas; flying above 3,000 feet; deploying a
Hush House or Ground Run-up Enclosure; deploying noise suppression measures for the
Growler engines; notifying citizens in advance of Growler training operations at Ault Field.
-- The EIS should evaluate establishing noise closures (silent periods) during endangered
species breeding and nesting periods. Scientific evaluations should be required to
determine the most crucial periods of time for each of the endangered species who rely
on habitat in the San Juan Islands. -- This EIS should conduct all analysis from the
Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Thank you for listening to
my concerns. Sincerely yours, Jane W. Ward CC: Senators Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell
and Representative Rick Larsen
3249
(b)(6)
3250
Lopez, WA 98261
I am concerned about the effects of growler noise and pollution on wildlife, on land and in
the sea. We should know the effects. Especially since the San Juans have recently
become a national monument. The EIS should analyze the effects not just on people, but
on the environment we depend upon.
(b)(6)
3251
Victoria, V8X 1R8

The noise and disruption is unbearable from where I live in Victoria, British Columbia.
This is a violation of our right to a peaceful coexistence with our neighbors. Please DO
NOT increase the existing VAQ operations at NAS Whidbey Islands Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville. PLEASE DO NOT increase VAQ capabilities and augment the training
squadron by adding up to 36 aircraft.
(b)(6)
3252
Victoria, V8Y2B8
Writing to inform of a noise complaint that impacts my family living in Victoria, BC,
Canada. With children ages 6 and 9, aware we are living in an earthquake zone, the
stress of the very loud rumblings (entire house shakes) is very unsettling. As adults we
understand the origin of the "loud rumblings" to be that of the Growler operations on
Whidbey Island. But children cannot differentiate. This impacts their anxiety levels. I
cannot even begin to comprehend how adding additional Growlers to the fleet will
negatively impact my family. The noise is unsettling and I have already notice increased
frequency of flight times over the last 6 months. Today, as I sit here in my home office, it
seems like the loud rumblings have not stopped since 830am. I look forward to having
some quality of life without having to experience constant "earth shaking rumblings".
(b)(6)
3253
Lopez, WA 98261
My family and I have spent time on Lopez for decades. Never before have I experienced
dread when arriving on the island and driving to the south end. Beyond the stress the
sound causes, particularly on days when the cloud cover is low, we are anxious about
lack of information. We would like to know about the cumulative impact on human health
of low frequency noise, and for leaders at the naval base to have compassion for those
suffering the effects of their decisions. I would like the EIS to address the impact of the
addition of Growlers, from 0 to the current levels of jets, on the noise environment of a 30
mile radius of the Whidbey NAS.
(b)(6)
3254

Thank you for all that you do! As a US Veteran, I understand much that you endeavor
each day. I also share a concern with many of my fellow local communities in the piercing
noise of the Growlers' over-flights, for all of us as humans and all of the animals who are
sharply impacted as well! Please conduct continuous sound measurements in the fly-over
zones of the Growlers and the health implications of these extreme sounds. Please
evaluate alternatives to using Growlers. Please evaluate and implement alternatives to
suppress the intense sounds of the Growlers. During fly-overs, please edit orders to
establish a mandatory higher fly-over zone. Please continue to analyze and measure
Environmental Concerns in your Environmental Assessment process. I appreciate any
measures that you take in decreasing the painful sounds of the Growlers for many
humans and animals! Thank you!
(b)(6)
3255
Lopez, WA 98261
I request that the EIS include the study of the following impacts, THAT MY FAMILY,
NEIGHBORS AND COMMUNITY ARE NOW EXPERIENCING BECAUSE OF WHIDBEY
NAS JET NOISE: LOW FREQUENCY SOUNDS, MEASURED WITH PROPER C
WEIGHTING DISTURBED SLEEP OF HUMANS STARTLE, SCARE AND STRESS
REACTIONS OF WILDLIFE INCLUDING BIRDS, LAND MAMMALS, FISH AND SEA
MAMMALS ECONOMIC COST OF LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY FOR A VARIETY OF
REPRESENTATIVE PROFESSIONS INJURY AND LOSS OF LIFE BECAUSE NOISE
DISRUPTS ABILITY TO HEAR PASSING CARS, SHOUTS OF ALARM AND DANGER
LOWER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR HUMANS HEARING DAMAGE.
(b)(6)
3256
Lopez, WA 98261
I am concerned about the effects of growler noise and pollution on wildlife, on land and in
the sea. We should know the effects. Especially since the San Juans have recently
become a national monument. The EIS should analyze the effects not just on people, but
on the environment we depend upon.
(b)(6)
3257
Lopez, WA 98261
I request that the EIS include the study of the following impacts, THAT MY FAMILY,
NEIGHBORS AND COMMUNITY ARE NOW EXPERIENCING BECAUSE OF WHIDBEY
NAS JET NOISE: LOW FREQUENCY SOUNDS, MEASURED WITH PROPER C
WEIGHTING DISTURBED SLEEP OF HUMANS STARTLE, SCARE AND STRESS
REACTIONS OF WILDLIFE INCLUDING BIRDS, LAND MAMMALS, FISH AND SEA
MAMMALS ECONOMIC COST OF LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY FOR A VARIETY OF
REPRESENTATIVE PROFESSIONS INJURY AND LOSS OF LIFE BECAUSE NOISE
DISRUPTS ABILITY TO HEAR PASSING CARS, SHOUTS OF ALARM AND DANGER
LOWER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR HUMANS HEARING DAMAGE.
(b)(6)
3258
Lopez, WA 98261
We ENTIRELY CHALLENGE THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE FOR
THIS EIS, based on the faulty previous Environment Assessments in 2005 and 2012.
Neither of those EAs correctly analyzed the effects of bringing the original Growlers to
the Whidbey NAS. The White Houses Council for Environmental Quality regulation 1502,
section 14, on Proposed Alternatives states, In this section agencies shall: (f) Include
appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or
alternatives. We thus request that TWO ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES BE
CONSIDERED FOR THIS EIS as follows: 1. All Growlers, including the ones already
stationed at Whidbey NAS, should be removed from the base permanently, or 2.
Whidbey NAS should be closed permanently.
(b)(6)
3259

I am writing about what I am hearing at this moment. The roar of growlers is so often in
the skies here on Lopez Island, yet one does not get accustomed to it. And the thought of
there being MORE growlers, and of more flights due to the training of Australian pilots, is
very unsettling to me. And to many others. Just the other day a friend told me she is
leaving to visit Colorado. She said that for the first time in the ten years she has lived
here she is glad to get away. She lives on Aleck Bay, on the south shore of Lopez. Why
should a resident be relieved to depart from the home she loves? There are times when
my wife and I must interrupt a conversation because of the deafening roar of these
aircraft. It makes no sense for the navy to say that there is no significant impact of
growler flights on Lopez. Yes, we have heard jet noise in years past, but the growlers are
significantly worse, and now the navy plans to conduct electronic warfare exercises over
the Olympic Peninsula, impacting yet more communities. This EIS must study the impact
of growler flights on humans and animals alike, and do so in a way that truly measures
the decibel levels. Sea birds, sea mammals, and land creatures all matter, maybe not to
the Pentagon, but to the rest of the natural and human world I live in they do.
(b)(6)
3260

I live in Port Townsend and frequently travel to Whidbey Island. The incredible noise of
the Naval aircraft suggests that the Navy has no concern for the populace at large.
Deleterious health effects of such noise have been documented. The actions of the Navy
evidences willful lack of care or regard for the health and welfare of people (and perhaps
animals) in San Juan and Jefferson Counties. References: Kryter K: Physiological,
Administration, Washington, pp. 535-545, 1984. Hall, FL., Birnie, SE, Taylor, SM, Palmer,
JE: Direct Comparison of Community Response to Road Traffic Noise and To Aircraft
Noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70:1690-1698, 1981.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/aircraft-noise-health-heart-disease-stroke-risk
_n_4065789.html http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ERCD1208.pdf
http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/Files/Community%20Aircraft%20Noise_A%20Public%
20Health%20Issue.pdf The EIS should address the health effects of Startle Reactions.
Medical surveysshould be conducted on the impacted populations including San Juan
County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. Preferably, training
should be conducted in simulation situations rather than harming people who happen to
be in the path of this travesty. Most sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3261
Victoria, WA V8s4e3
The noise is very unsettling and ominous. Smaller louder noises can be dealt with,
explained. This low rumbling is like a constant reminder of earthquakes or serious
storms. Please stop it.
(b)(6)
3262

In addition to our earlier comments submitted on December 24, 2014, we are also
concerned that the Navy has separated the ground, air, and sea-based activities of its
proposed Electronic Warfare Testing and Training program on and around the Olympic
Peninsula into different public processes that have resulted in four separate comment
periods in the last five months of 2014: The Navys Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare
Range Environmental Assessment, on use of roads in the Olympic National Forest. The
Forest Services decision on whether to issue a Special Use Permit for the above. The
addition of 36 Growler jets to the fleet of 82 Growlers already at the Naval Air Station on
Whidbey Island. And, a supplement to the Northwest Training and Testing Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Overseas EIS on the expansion of sonar
and explosive activities in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the waters off Indian Island, and the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. The public does not view these electronic
warfare testing and training activities as separate, and the Navys separation of them into
four distinct processes have caused, and continue to cause widespread confusion and
frustration among the residents of the Olympic Peninsula. We realize that the current EIS
component is only about the additional 36 EA-18G Growler jets, but the air and
ground-based activities in this training program are far too closely related to be
considered separately. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
all federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement whenever they
functionally related must be included. We believe that these separate and piecemeal
evaluations fail to take into account the cumulative impacts of each of the four related
proposals. The lack of a cumulative impact analysis not only violates NEPA, it give the
impression that the Navy is trying to game the system by doing a piecemeal analysis.
Furthermore, a 1988 Master Agreement between the Department of Defense and the US
Department of Agriculture requires the Forest Service to study both the impacts of the
directly associated with the land-based training. So the separation of ground and
air-based activities into different study processes, one an EA and one an EIS, in which
the public must restrict comments to narrowly defined subject areas, goes against both
NEPA and the Master Agreement. We ask you to fulfill the stipulations of the Master
Agreement and the requirements of NEPA by including a thorough study of the
cumulative impacts of all of these training proposals in the DEIS.
(b)(6)
3263

The psychological impact of sudden loud noise, as well as its maximum decibel level, are
important considerations in expanding the the Navy training operations over the Olympic
Peninsula, at NAS Whidbey Island and at the Off-site Landing Field. Loud blasts of noise
can be heard at our location late into the night. Sound propagation over local waters and
around the terrain of Puget Sound can not be adequately modeled numerically. Actual
field studies are necessary to assess the extent and impact of this disruptive influence.
(b)(6)
3264
Victoria, BC, Canada, V8S 4X4

I live in nearby Victoria, British Columbia, Canada and the increasingly noisy and regular
sound of the EA-18G Growler's is becoming more and more bothersome. I realize I live in
a different country, but the activity of these Growler's has me deeply concerned especially since I have read that the numbers of Growlers is set to increase by about 25
planes. I am not only concerned about the increased noise pollution, but also about the
increased level of exhaust in our local air systems that will likely be created by these
planes. I am also concerned about the environmental impact that these military "tools"
are causing, especially if their numbers are set to increase. We live in a sensitive marine
environment, and this also needs to be taken into consideration. It is frustrating that as a
Canadian, I feel like aside from this little letter, I have little other say in something that is
starting to really impact the quality of life here on the South Coast of British Columbia.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3265
Victoria, BC, V8Y 2T8

I have been wondering for months what that infernal vibration is that rumbles so low it
makes my head hurt and gets under my skin. I thought it was some sort of earthquake or
far-off blasting. I have lived in the same house for 25 years and it's only in the last couple
of years that it's become really noticeable and more recently almost unbearable in the
frequency. Today alone, there have been over 20 disturbances only this morning, and as
we are approaching noon, it seems like there's one every minute! I can't stand what is
already happening, and I am horrified that the U.S. Navy wants to increase the number of
flights. Isn't there another way of getting the training in at different altitude or with different
methods, like simulation to curtail the domestic disturbances?? It really messes with my
whole family and our pets. Please consider the quality of life of all of us in Greater
Victoria. Being at the top of a plateau near the ocean, my neighborhood is particularly
affected. Please let's find a better solution. Submitted respectfully, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3266
Westport, WA 98595
We are very concerned that the projects related to this are being piecemealed by
separating them into ground, air and sea-based activities. Each activity has its separate
procedures and separate procedures and separate documents. The result is that the
public has not been shown the complete and cumulative impacts on this proposed
project. As a consequence this is contrary to the NEPA process that should be followed.
We believe that the EIS process needs to determine, analyze and report on the combined
and cumulative impacts that these separate projects would have on human, wildlife,
aquatic and aquatic dependent populations. There also should be a true No Project
analysis which is based on the combined projects.
(b)(6)
3267

I live in Port Townsend, WA, and frequently travel to the San Juan Islands for recreational
purposes. These trips are ruined by over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations from
Growlers and operation at Ault Field. When the jets are flying the noise is often so
intense that nothing can be heard other than the jet noise. Naval Air Station Whidbey
Island does not publish a schedule of training operations for Ault Field. As a
consequence, residents and visitors never know if a blast of noise is going to be a single
30 second event or the beginning of 3 hours of noise from training. This severely impacts
and/or sonic booms on rural Americans. A significant portion of the economy is
dependent upon tourism. People are not going to want to endure this harmful degradation
to the environment. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M: Psychophysiological
Reaction to Noise as Modified by Personal Control over Noise Intensity. Biol Psychol,
6:51-59, 1978. Singer JE, Acri JB, Schaeffer MH: Cognitive Changes from Noise
Exposure. In Bergland B, Lindvall T (eds): Noise as a Public Health Problem. New
Advances in Noise Research (volume I of proceedings of the 5th international congress
on noise as a public health problem, held in Stockholm, Aug. 21-25, 1988), Swedish
Council for Building Research, Stockholm, pp 401-410, 1990. Bargen R: Airspace Blues,
Airspace, Gabbs, Nev, p 424, 1989. The EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control.
Approaches (CCA). Preferably, training should be conducted in simulation situations,
avoiding the incredible waste of money, dumping of chemicals and other environmental
damage. Preferably, our policies and practices should shift to peace-making rather than
preparation for war, and making war on the people of Washington. Most Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3268

I sit here listening to the rumble and roar of jet engines. My house vibrates from the
ground up. I am on the second floor and feel the vibration. I have a cracked window as a
result of this vibration. That is the least of my problems. I am in my seventy ninth year
and have been a resident on this island since 1970, At that time there was no noise
issue. If I could afford to move I would. I can't, and my tax dollars are supporting this
arrogant use of jet fuel and airspace.The noise affects not only my health, but my pets
too. I keep my cat door shut at all times because the cat is so frieghtened that I have lost
him in the woods for days at a time. He is to old to winter outside. The constancy of this
intolerable noise is a threat to normal life and well being. We who live on this island
resent the Navys attitude that this is an area of no consequence We live here and you
have made it a constant nightmare...I could add pages of concerns, including the
environment of this precious jewel of an island that we call home. The maps you present
are either lies or terrible misinformed items! I live about in the center of this island, and
what I hear is a thunderous riot of noise...all but daily! We do note the quiet days, rather
that the noisy days They are more notable!!
(b)(6)
3269

Hearing the growlers at my home is new, just started this week. I consider it to be noise
pollution. If possible to lessen the frequency and time of day, I would appreciate it. I live
here because it is peaceful and quiet and I find this new noise quite disturbing.
(b)(6)
3270

I live in Port Townsend, Washington. I travel to the San Juan Islands with some
frequency. What used to be a quiet peaceful place now regularly is filled with the sounds
of a war zone. I was driving on Whidbey Island when it startedI couldnt figure out what
was happeningI felt fear and could hear nothing but this overwhelming sound. When I
saw the first jets, I suddenly understood the danger. Ear protection does nothing. My
body vibrates. I am concerned about the effects on the children at the schools. Research
pressure. References: Goldman B: Sheshatshit, Labrador A Town without Hope. Can
Med Assoc J, 141:602-605,1989.1162 (b)(6) Page 13 of 23. Bartels K:
Medizinische/psychosomatische Auswirkung von lieffluglarm. In Kinder undTiefflug.
Bonn, June 12, pp 18-22,1989. Preuss S: Militarischer Jiefflug Und Seine Psychischen
should include shifting flight patterns to avoid schools and homes. Preferably, training
should take place in simulation situations. given the advances in computer simulation,
this is not unrealistic. Even better would be policy shifts away from war-making to
generating peace Most sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3271

Subject: Whidbey Island EA-18G Growler EIS/Airfield Operation I am writing to request
that the Navy minimize the Growler overflights of San Juan County and request that the
jets avoid flying below 3,000 feet over our islands and waters. I am also requesting that
the Navy reduce the noise impact of stationary engine run-ups, as well as the use of
afterburners. It has been shown that there are other locations in the US where facilities
could be expanded that are further away from homes and businesses and would not so
severely impact the quality of life of the populous, and marine life. Please take steps to
reduce the engine noise and do not add more Growlers to the NAS Whidbey Island base.
Thank you.
(b)(6)
3272

I have lived on the north end of Lopez Island at 681 Lopez Road since 2007. For twenty
years prior to moving to Lopez I lived just west of Coupeville. One of the reasons I moved
to Lopez was to get away from Powler jet noise. I value the peace quiet brings to life and
the abundant wildlife in the San Juan National Monument. When I first moved to Lopez
jet noise was not part of my life. That changed as soon as the Growlers replaced the
Prowlers at Ault field. My peaceful existence here disappeared. Growlers are intolerable
compared to Prowlers! I assume they are louder to intimidate the enemy. I am not the
enemy! This change in aircraft along with the addition of more aircraft at NAS Whidbey
has significantly impacted my life on the northwest coast of Lopez Island. I hear every
warm-up of the engines as a low to load rumble whether I am inside or outside my home
as if I am near a major airport. I hear aircraft flying around the islands and often see
aircraft flying over north Lopez while at home, in Lopez Village or walking at Spencer Spit
State Park. My life is being degraded by the constant noise and intrusive over-flights of
Growlers. My property value is going down as these flights increase. Lopez Island is no
longer a peaceful quiet place! The United States Navy considers San Juan County a no
significant impact area. This clearly in not the truth. The EIS should fully evaluate one
or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
Alternatives: The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States: The alternatives include
alternatives ... . I believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just because they are
higher in cost or not as efficient. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives
that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. The Navy should
conduct continuous sound measurements in ALL of San Juan County over a one-month
period as they continue flights as usual and include C Weighted sound measurements
and analysis in the EIS. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise
The EIS should evaluate noise mitigation measures such as minimize flight routes over or
citizens in advance of Growler training operations at Ault Field. This EIS should conduct
3272
(b)(6)
3273
Nordland, WA 98358-9622
Fiirst: There are other training facilities in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Nevada. No
more facilities are needed. Second: According to scientific and government reports,
emitters cause damage. Third: EIS must include an analysis of the cumulative effects
(esp noise) of the expanding fleet of Growlers.
(b)(6)
3274
Victoria,
Lest the US Navy think only Whidbey Islanders are affected by Growler noise, my wife
and I live in Gordon Head (just north of Victoria), about 50 km from the NAS, and we
regularly hear the jets. The noise has become more common and noticeable recently,
often causing people to pause in conversations and ask "what is that noise"? If this were
an occasional event, it would not be an issue, but as it becomes frequent, the noise is
increasingly annoying. I hope that the Navy will be able to benefit from these comments
as it tries to control the adverse noise impacts of Whidbey Island NAS training.
(b)(6)
3275
Mendocino, CA 95460-9599
Electromagnetic radiation is well documented to be hazardous to all life forms, including
humans. See www.EMFSummit.com for a series of interviews with the top scientists
who've been researching EMR for years. EMR as weaponry carries a huge price tag
beyond money. Protecting must be the emphasis, not attacking. Just because it can be
done doesn't mean it should. Please, think carefully about any use of EMR. Don't make
creatures in the sea or on land pay the toll for answering questions best left in the lab.
Thank you.
(b)(6)
3276

January 9, 2015 Comments on Draft EIS for Growler Jets At Naval Air Station, Whidbey
Island WA To Whom It May Concern: I am a Registered Nurse residing in Port
Townsend, WA and I write to express my outrage at the devastating impact Navy warfare
practice is having on my life and the lives of the children and adult residents whom I
serve. Noise: Here is a list of adjectives that describe the noise we hear from Growler
and other Navy jets as they fly over and near our homes: Ear-splitting -- must drop
everything and cover ears Shakes the house Walls tremble Sounds like an
earthquake might BE and earthquake we drop what we are doing and run outside to
check and make sure Horrible, non-stop, shattering, roaring, violent, ripping noise
nothing else exists during its duration no thoughts can exist, no work can be done
Emotions during the flights: Fear, Depression, Anger, Grief, Outrage The noise impact on
the people of the areas the jets are/will be flying over needs to be addressed in this EIS.
Fuel Dumping: Surely the Navy, as well as our elected representatives, is aware of the
organized efforts by citizens and the government to clean up Puget Sound. Millions of
dollars of public money, private money, and citizen effort have been going into this
project for many years. Dumping any amount of jet fuel, or any kind of fuel, into Puget
Sound is in direct conflict with this important environmental goal. This issue must be
addressed in the EIS. Pristine National Treasure: Puget Sound, the Strait of San Juan de
Fuca, the Olympic National Park, and the Olympic Peninsula are well recognized as a
National Treasure and therefore visited by millions of people from all over the world. This
is a totally inappropriate area for navy warfare jet practice and its ensuing negative
environmental degradation. Taking of Citizen Rights: This navy jet warfare practice is a
direct taking of resident and visitor peace, health, and property. The resulting
degradation of our environment is criminal. This issue must be addressed in an EIS.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. My grandfather served in the air force during
World War II and I understand and approve of maintaining a reasonable defense system.
However, when the system creates conditions it is attempting to prevent, it has defeated
its purpose. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3277

January 9, 2015 Dear Navy and all concerned, So you understand who I am -- I am 64,
retired social worker who worked with abused children for 20 years, took care of my
husband for 10 years with Alzheimer, cared for my mother for 9 years while she had
cancer. I have written a children's book to help kids with problems. I was in the Loma
Prieta Earthquake and every time the rumbling starts, I jump (note I am not some wimp
who whines or cannot handle things -- this is something that I cannot change and
unfortunately, is part of me). I am president of FRIENDS OF LOPEZ pool and we are in
the stages of building a pool so youth can learn to swim and oldsters can rehab. I made
the call to secure the donation of land. My mother's foundation, which I am now
overseeing is donating half a million over two years. It is crucial you understand that, I am
committed to this community on all levels. I have returned to my love pottery and
ceramics. To also point out who I am-- I yearly participate in a Japanese wood firing that
takes 48 hours and 5 cords of wood. The kiln specially built here on Lopez for the yearly
event. I do shifts through the night to feed the kiln. I split wood. I maybe retired from part
of my life BUT I am an active, creative person. Not a slacker sitting watch TV. I also
return to the most important need, my deep love of nature so that I can live HERE on
Lopez, with friends in old age... LIST OF MY COMPLAINTS ** On Jan 7 2015, my large
electric kiln shut off while Growlers flew over. I understand the weaponry is to scramble
electrical and communication. It works! ** On more days than I can count I have been
unable to- while in my house, talk on the phone. **Family has told me they will not come
to visit me as they kept being woke up at 1AM. **Two miles, as the crow flies, a house
had a huge explosion, with multiple propane tanks-- at ten at night. I did not think it was
anything other than, the Growlers. I point this out so you realize the level of noise, I have
learned to endure. **My health, mental and physical. This is obvious but I list it as a sole
point. **My dog, Lydia hates the noise. Odd as she is deaf, but the vibrations upset her
now. **Who is going to buy my home? The devaluation of our properties on Lopez is a
fact. I truly thought I could tough it out but in the last few days - Jan 5 to today, Jan 9th, it
is clear that I will have to move if it continues. Some contend a conspiracy to lower prices
and come in and scoop up some prime real-estate. We joke of this, of course, but one
wonders, as we formulate how we would have to have disclosures on the noise level
here. **It feels like the Growlers fly over with the sole attention of getting us upset. I know
how ridiculous that sounds BUT I cannot help but think there is a conscious conspiracy to
make us seem more unbalanced and a bit crazy? AND how crazy does that sound?
WHAT I WANT TO KNOW **Why can't the Navy tell us when they will be training? One
officer said, they could not because the pilots just sign up, right then and there and go
off this does not seem to me, to be any way, I would way the Navy to work TELL me
--oh please tell me-- you know what these young men and women are doing every
minute, while they fly above me? For their safety as well.. **Why can't the Navy measure
noise without a model? I spend several hours, along with PHDs in physics talking to
some of the specialist that work for the Navy and we need to understand WHY you
cannot just come down and place machines and equipment that actually measure noise?
A model, make no sense to me and to many who have vast educations? I know that
models must have a baseline - please use Southern Lopez as the baseline. Please
explain in detail, WHY real noise measurement cannot be used? **Why can't the Navy
send pilots over who are training from Australia to fly there? Australia is huge surrounded
by water and weather like our area. One of the officers, told me it would be too
expensive, as your simulators are at the Navy BaseJan . Here again, not to be flip, but
they could not cost that much? It would be a good business move to make them and sell
them there. Navy does not seem concerned over many cost of items Simulators, how
much do they cost?
===================================================================
================= In summary please study or do the following: * Conduct
continuous on the ground - sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a
two-month period. * Include C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS.
http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj1/lfnreport-2007-001.pdf * Study the
impacts of afterburner use on all surrounding communities. Sound measurement and
mitigation section of the Record of Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in
training flights. * The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements
5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County. Reference:
Replacement Metric Research, Final Report, 14 June 2011, Section 6.1, last paragraph. *
in place for all Growler activity. References: Kryter K: Physiological, Psychological, and
Acoust. Soc. Am. 70:1690-1698, 1981. * The EIS should address the issue of Loss of
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs). Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M:
Bargen R: Airspace Blues, Airspace, Gabbs, Nev, p 424, 1989. * The EIS should
Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 3-8, 1989. * The EIS should address sleep
3277
Bioclimatiques due CNRS, France. * The EIS should fully evaluate one or more
alternatives that bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. *
Mitigation At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully considered. All
with timelines for completion. Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island
Growler training flights over populated areas including San Juan County should be above
3,000 feet elevation. Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over
North Puget Sound. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used for
noise suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. Test, acquire
and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the
Growlers. Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield
* The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit,
Jefferson and Island Counties. * This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning
and should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005
and 2012 Environmental Assessments Finally, I am an American and love my country. I
want to be safe and feel crushed when people suggest otherwise. My grandson is
seriously looking to go in the Airfare or Navy. I am 100 percent in favor of this and proud
that he is choosing that path. I let you know these so maybe you can hear me and why I
need to have the Growlers situation studied in depth. Did you read this far? Please
contact me if yo have any further questions. (b)(6)
Lopez Island WA 98261 (b)(6)
3277
(b)(6)
(b)(6)

I live in Jefferson County and travel to the San Juan Islands with some frequency.
Over-flights from the NAS on Whidbey Island destroy any sense of the natural
environment in the parks and lands set aside for public renewal and recreation. When
these flights occur, the surreal experience of being in a war zone is most distressing. I do
not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that would base Growlers
somewhere other than NASWI. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality
bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. Preferably, this training
should occur in simulation environments, thereby preserving our natural environment,
saving money, vastly diminishing emissions and other pollutions, and preserving the
peace of the Islands. Significantly better, a policy change from war-making to
peace-making would obviate the perceived need to train to kill. Most Sincerely
(b)(6)
3279
Victoria, WA V8R 5Y9

Hello. I live in Victoria, British Columbia to the west of NAS Whidbey Island, across the
Strait of Juan de Fuca. As many others in Victoria have noted the EA-18G Growler
operations are frequently audible along the southwest coast of the city and for some
distance inland. The "rumblings" are often loud, frequent, disruptive and occur during the
day and night, on any given day. What is remarkable is the distance travelled - probably
15 miles across water. We understand the need for the Growler operations but ask that
as a good neighbour, NAS Whidbey Island take steps to minimize the significant and
continuing noise pollution that is negatively impacting your neighbours. Thanks!
(b)(6)
3280
Sequim, WA 98382
I have read the materials available on your website and note concerns that homepage on
1/5/15 shows a last update of 11/17/14, yet surely more information from December 2014
meetings should be shown to be incorporated and records available for review. I now
summarily note that the 192 page EIS I did read reveals serious deficiencies regarding
evaluation of NEPA required aspects of environmental impacts. As an Olympic peninsula
resident and user of ONP & ONF, I will be personally adversely impacted - as will local
communities and all critters (including marine, migrating and endangered species!) The
alternative 4 addition of 36 Growler jets to 82 already at Whidbey Island is not properly
addressed in the analyses provided. Indeed, the EIS for this plan and even the VAQ
mission impacts based on prior 2005 EA & 2012 EA have not accounted for level of harm
to economies (property values damaged by noise from noisiest jets made),harm to
tourist-based businesses (historic Port Townsend & over 1 million tourists drawn to ONP
- a designated International Biosphere Preserve), to the specific harm to health of elderly
with our retiree demographics, to the potentially serious effects on the domestic animals
and unique wildlife of our peninsula. The EIS sections B.3.9, B.3.5, & B.3.8 do not
adequately provide documentation that supports the "alternative 4" plan expansion. The
fact that the Navy has now announced and addendum for future comment leads to
concerns about why all information pertinent to future scope of operations and cumulative
impacts made available so full effects can be reviewed. I also question the justification for
separating this EIS/plan from the recent EA re:Electronic Warfare Training Range. I
conclude with an excerpt from your EIS B.3.8:...the larger ecological issues, and the
potentials for drawing conclusions regarding effects on populations, has not been well
developed... I ADD:NOR SUFFICIENTLY EVALUATED. Thank you for your
consideration of these major concerns. I appreciate the service of our armed forces, but
believe this plan is not in our best interest. (b)(6)
(retired CIH & CSP)
(b)(6)
3281

I live in Port Townsend, WA, and often travel to the San Juan Islands. I travel there now
with some dread, as I never know when the NAS will bring a war-like experience to my
time there. The Navy should be implementing immediate noise mitigations to reduce the
Juan and Jefferson Counties. In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the
Council on Environmental Quality regulation 1502, section 14 on Proposed Alternatives
states,In this section agencies shall: ... (f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not
already included in the proposed action or alternatives. I believe that the 2005 and 2012
minimize routes over populated areas to the greatest extent possible. b) Growler training
elevation. c) Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget
Sound. d) A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used for noise
including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and controlled Carrier Approaches(CCA).
Preferably, this training should be conducted in comupter-simulation environments so as
to minimize the harms. Policy changes from war-making to peace-generation could
obviate the entire question. Most Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3282

before. The past month has been particularly horrific. All the reasons we have chosen to
Growlers. I have developed a skin condition that my doctor says may be caused by the
anxiety that this constant noise creates. The Navy considers San Juan County a no
significant impact area. This is clearly false. - The Navy should conduct continuous
(b)(6)
3283
Victoria BC, V1S 4X5

I have heard the sonic rumblings in my Oak Bay neighbourhood and even further up the
Saanich peninsula for many years. They sound particularly loud this week, stopping
conversation load. I don't mind the noise but every time I hear it I worry about the more
delicate members of the sensitive ecosystem we are fortunate to call home on the West
coast, primarily the whales and other marine mammals. What steps have you taken to
know for sure this does not negatively effect their communicating, breeding and feeding
behaviours and general quality of life? Thank you for your time.
(b)(6)
3284

I have lived in Port Townsend for 24 years. During the last year I started hearing the
noise from Growler jets flyovers and that they kept increasing in numbers. The noise
levels are more subdued with the present weather of rain and wind. However there have
been enough times of elevated noise levels to indicate what we will have to expect during
the times of clear skies. 1. ANALYSIS Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler
Environmental Assessments were inadequate to be used in the current EIS process. THE
EIS SHOULD STUDY THE FOLLOWING: A. CONDUCT CONTINOUS SOUND
MEASUREMENTS IN ALL AREAS EXPOSED TO OVER-FLIGHT NOISE OF THE
GROWLERS NOTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RAINY/WINDY WEATER AND
CLEAR SKIES. B. INCLUDE C-WEIHGTED SOUND MEASUREMENTS IN THE EIS. C.
THE EIS ANALYSIS SHOULD INCORPORATE SUPPLEMENTAL NOISE
MEASUREMENTS INCLUDING SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL (SEL) AND PEAK SOUND
LEVEL (LMAX IN ADDITION TO LDN. DOCUMENT THE PROJECTED ANNUAL
NUMBER OF EVENTS THAT EXCEED 60 dB SEL AND LMAX IN 5 dB INCREMENTS
THROUGHOUT THE IMPACTED AREAS. D. SOUND MEASUREMENT AND
ANALYSIS IN THE EIS SHOULD INCLUDE AFTERBURNERS OR THE NAVY SHOULD
COMMIT IN THE MITIGATION SECTION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) TO
NOT USE AFTERBURNERS IN TRAINING FLIGHTS. I oppose the planned expansion to
add 36 more jets to the current fleet of 82 EA-18G Growler jets stationed at the Naval Air
Station Whidbey Island. Sincerely,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3285

I moved to Port Townsend, WA to buy land and plant a small organic farm. The NAS and
its training program are challenging my choice as the quality of life is significantly
degraded by the over-flights, fuel-dumping, bombing our ocean, killing whatever is in the
water, electronic warfarewe seem intent upon destroying our world. I support a pattern
of economic growth that recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine and
isolated nature of the islands and the Olympic Peninsula in general. The quiet and
kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. Tourists are not likely to want to spend
time in a place so negatively impacted by the NAS' callus disregard of place and person.
Continuation of the current level of jet noise, let alone increasing the number of jets, the
number of flights, will discourage tourists and reduce property values. The EIS should
address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit,Jefferson and Island
Counties. Most Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3286
Victoria, V8P3Y8
I live in Victoria, BC and whenever you fly by it sounds like a neighbor is blasting rocks or
that it is the beginning of an earthquake. It is important work that you are doing, but
perhaps you can fly over less populated areas or higher in the sky so that its not so
disturbing?
(b)(6)
3287
Victoria, WA V8N1K9
I am a resident of Victoria British Columbia and neighbour to Washington State (hence
why I selected Washington as the state above). The Growler sonic vibrations shake my
house in successive periods of several minutes at a time over several hours, usually in
the evenings between 7pm and 11:pm PT. It is very noticeable, as if someone was doing
major construction next door. It concerns me that the program is scheduled to intensify
with more Growlers coming to Whidbey Island. I am also concerned about the effect of
this disruption on marine mammals.
(b)(6)
(b)(6)

I live in Port Townsend, WA. I am very concerned about the EIS process of the Navy. It
appears that both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were deficient and
of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Due diligence by the
Navy, including reviews of documented research and conducting research related to the
experiences of current residents, is the only honorable action. The current EIS
documents read like sleight of hand magic shows rather than honest and forthright
documentation. The flat denials of impact are unconscionable. Most Sincerely,
(b)(6)
3289

I live on Lopez Island. The Navy must conduct continuous sound measurements in the
southern portion of SJC over a one-month period. Include C Weighted sound
measurements and analysis in the EIS. Thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3290
Victoria, V9R 6G4

Please add my voice to those who wish to lodge a complaint about the noise which is
emanating from the airfield on Whidbey Island. While I do understand the need to
practice, we are frequently bombarded by noise of the Growlers. The thought of
additional planes being added to the mix, along with the subsequent addition of more
training runs is most disconcerting. As it is, quiet enjoyment of our garden is nearly
impossible during a training session. Is there no way to reduce/muffle the noise of these
engines which carries across the strait to Victoria? Thank you for giving me an
opportunity to raise my concerns.
(b)(6)
3291

I live on the NE corner of Lopez Island and was just on a walk with my family at Spencer
Spit State Park. This location is closed in the winter, but supports a significant aspect of
tourism in our small island community. This tourism is essential to our livelihood and I
have serous concerns regarding the impact of jet noise on the desirability of this
cherished campground. I extend my concern to Deception Pass State Park and all the
other natural areas that visitors from around the world come to visit for a peaceful
moment in their busy lives. My REQUEST is that the Navy conduct a study of tourists
response to the jet noise for ONE FULL TOURIST SEASON. This would be
approximately from June to October. The economy in ours and the surrounding
communities could very well suffer from the impacts of this constant noise. Please
respond to this message. Thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3292

Hello, The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements including
Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (Lmax) in addition to Ldn.
5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan County. Thank you,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3293

Hello, I have concerns regarding the economic impact of jet noise in San Juan County:
The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of peace....
We support a pattern of economic growth ... which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet,
Island Counties. Thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3294
victoria bc canada, WA V8y1x9

Loud noise vibrates windows in my house. Sounds like an earthquake.
(b)(6)
3295

Hello, I live on the NE conner of Lopez Island. Research shows that children can be very
distressed over military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror, panic,
screaming, freezing in place, palpitations, shaking, dizziness, bed wetting, sleep
disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. References: Goldman
B: Sheshatshit, Labrador A Town without Hope. Can Med Assoc J,
Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 3- 8, 1989. The EIS should specifically
shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. Sincerely
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3296

Hello, I live not he NE corner of Lopez and have a request to explore alternative
air-space for the flight procedures that are currently underway and proposed to increase.
I do not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that would base
(b)(6)
3297
Brentwood Bay, BC, V8M1G5

I live on the Saanich Peninsula in B.C. Canada. We hear deep roaring sounds regularly,
always coming from the SE, often in the evenings. It can be very disruptive. Please do
not allow more loud jets at Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
3298
victoria BC Canada, WY V9b2w9

My family and I took a walk on Island View Beach near Syndey BC today and we were
very disturbed by low loud frequency sounds. I returned home to do some research into
what we heard and I am in raged to find out that the noise was coming from the Growlers
in the US on Whidbey island. This noise pollution is intolerable.
(b)(6)
3299
Victoria, V9A 5L1

The volume levels and especially frequency of these sonic interruptions are in the long
term going to detract from the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of your own people
and that of your neighbors. I also have concerns about how it is affecting the marine
environment. The repeated denial of the cause by the military is also annoying and
creating unnecessary concerns among the public who believe the denials and are
therefore forced to engage in speculation regarding other possible sources of the
disturbances. Thank you for allowing us to give our opinions.
(b)(6)
3300
Victoria, BC, Canada, WA

the noise level and frequency of the EA-18G growler has escalated to unacceptable
levels. We are assaulted by an almost constant barrage that is heard quite clearly
INSIDE our home! Enjoyment of outdoor activities will be diminished - walking in the
woods listening to earthquake noises instead of birds! We in the "city of gardens" will
have our gardening time greatly disturbed by this constant assault on the senses!
(b)(6)
3301
Lopez, WA 98261
I moved to Lopez in first grade and consider it a life long home. When I returned from
college the noise was more disturbing than I was told. It has altered my mood and daily
routine. It is an upsetting way to return from school. I am worried about how it will effect
the community and beauty of the natural spaces. In the last year noise and over-flights
from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything we have experienced. All the
and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County a no
significant impact area. This is clearly false. - The Navy should conduct continuous
(b)(6)
3302
Sequim, WA 98382
I wish to say that I'm displeased that the Navy has divided up the related issues into three
or four separate response requests when, indeed, these tie into one another. If it were
one, of course the Navy would have to do an EIS, which is what is needed. The Navy
must do an EIS on Growlers for noise pollution, air pollution, lost property values of
having the continual noise. The Navy is being disingenuous in that it already has many
Growlers. More are not needed. Further, this training needs to take place in ID or
elsewhere where you already have a training facility and where the pollution and housing
value impacts will not occur. Again, put the entire plan for the coastal sonobuoys, the
Growlers, and the USFS land lease in one document and resubmit this to the public ask
we see the full picture and true costs.
(b)(6)
3303

Hi, I am a young adult who has grown up on Lopez island and recently started college on
the other side if the country. This past year while I have come home to visit I have been
surprised by how often I hear the Growlers. From talking to my peers and friends who are
year-long residents In the last year noise and over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field
has exceeded anything they have experienced. All the reasons we have chosen to live
clearly false. The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency noise.
(b)(6)
3304

I am a resident of the North end of Lopez Island, and currently work days at Sperry
Peninsula on the South end. The fly by growler's noise and vibration is significant at
work, requiring me to stop what I am doing and plug or cover my ears with protection to
continue working. The constancy of noise and vibration at both home and work produce
subtle bodily stress, and are a health concern for both myself and my husband. Please
conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of SJC over a
one-month period including all of Lopez and San Juan Island. Include C Weighted sound
Decision (ROD)to not use afterburners in training flights.
(b)(6)
3305
QUILCENE, WA 98376
Olympic Forest Coalition is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of the
forest and surrounding ecosystems on the Olympic Peninsula. Many of our members live,
work, recreate, hike, fish, or travel in areas of Olympic National Park, Olympic National
Forest, and Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Island, and San Juan counties that will be
adversely affected by any increase in the number of EA-18G Growler Aircraft at NASWI.
These members are already being adversely affected by the current number of EA-18Gs
at NASWI, the impacts of which have not been sufficiently evaluated in any
environmental document. Olympic Forest Coalition (OFCO) would appreciate the
inclusion of the Wilderness Act of 1964 under Section 3.5 of the Executive Summary; in
Chapter 1, Section 1.6.3 (Other Environmental Requirements Considered); and in
Chapter 3, Section 3.0.1.1 (Federal Statutes). Under Chapter 2, Section 2.7.1.1, it
states that, The Navy would increase the tempo of air combat maneuver training from
160 events per year to 550 events per year due to the introduction of locally based
EA-18G aircraft. This is an increase of 244%. Under Section 2.7.1.4 Electronic
Warfare, it states that, Under Alternative 1 [the preferred alternative], the Navy
proposes an increase in Electronic Warfare training from 2,900 events per year to 5,000
events per year with the proposed increase of additional electronic threat emitters in the
Study Area. This is an increase of 72.4%. The military overflights are within the Olympic
National Park and Olympic National Forest which includes a portion of the non-coastal
and nearly all of the coastal Congressionally-designated wilderness within the Olympic
National Park. Very low flying military aircraft buzzing peaks and valleys within the
wilderness area have been reported by many citizens who enter the wilderness areas
seeking peace, silence, and solitude. An analysis of the impact of increased military
overflights on the effects of the federally-threatened Marbled Murrelet and other species
of concern is covered under the Endangered Species Act; however, there is no analysis
conducted on the impacts of increased overflights on the federally-threatened spotted
owl, nor on wilderness character and visitor use and experience. OFCO requests that the
Navy conduct this analysis and include it within the EIS. Under mitigation measures for
Acoustic Stressors in Chapter 5, OFCO requests the Navy conduct baseline
soundscape monitoring prior to the completion of the EIS, and include those findings
within the EIS; then conduct regular (annual) soundscape monitoring within and outside
the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest, to ensure that noise from
increased military overflights would not have an appreciable effect on the natural sounds,
visitor experience, and on federally-threatened bird species within these areas. The
Olympic National Park is a World Heritage site, an International Biosphere Reserve, and
the home of One Square Inch of Silence, one of the quietest places in the United States.
The Park includes the world's last remaining coastal rainforest ecosystem of its kind. It is
an irreplaceable cultural and natural resource. The wilderness areas within the Olympic
National Forest attract thousands of visitors annually, all seeking the solitude and peace
such areas offer. Both the Olympic National Forest and the Olympic National Park are the
economic hub of the Olympic Peninsula, benefiting small and large local businesses with
gainfully employed residents. No proposed action by the Navy should adversely impact
the local economy or these national treasures in any way. Due to the fact that so much
more should be evaluated in the Proposed EIS than was presented in the Scoping
documents, Olympic Forest Coalition recommends and requests that a whole new
Scoping evaluation be conducted by the Navy, with another opportunity for the public to
comment with the appropriate and required length of time as outlined in the NEPA
process. Respectfully, (b)(6)
3305
(b)(6)
3306

My husband and I live on the North of Lopez and work outdoors in various locations on
the island. The jet low fly by occurances cause us to stop working and plug our ears or
find our ear protection so we can continue working while the plane is in the vacinity. In
addition prolonged rumble, noise and vibration create bodily stress for us. The impact of
startle reactions and prolonged periods of navy plane and jet noise and vibration
exposure should be studied for health effects. The EIS should address the health effects
of Startle Reactions. Conduct medical surveys on the impacted populations including
San Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. Kind Regards,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3307

Thank you for taking comments on this important public issue. I first came to Lopez
nearly 10 years ago, and the main reason was to enjoy the quiet and natural
environment. The existing number and intensity of naval over-flights is significant and at
times annoying. Expanding naval flights as proposed would have a noticeable and
negative impact on my quality of life on the island. Please consider holding flight
operations and frequencies to their current levels. thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3308

Significant stress is felt currently by my husband and I due to the lack of choice involved
in our environmental experience due to the higher number/prolonged flight times and
their accompanying levels of auditory/vibratory impact on our lives. Never in the 22 years
that we have lived here have we felt a disturbance that would make us unwillingly
consider a need to move out of the area. We have spent long hours literally building a life
here, a home we chose for its largely quiet and peaceful environment. The EIS should
address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should include notifying citizens in
Practice (FCLP)and Controlled Carrier Approaches(CCAs). As well as considering
moving locations for training to areas with little or no population within 50 miles of growler
bases if studies show significant health and stress impact. The EIS should fully evaluate
Island regardless of higher monetary cost or less efficiency. Other costs should be
factored in such as health, quality of life and economic impacts of the surrounding
communities that are within the vicinity of the Whidbey Island Naval facilities. Kind
Regards, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3309

Hi, I am a young adult who has grown up on Lopez island and recently started college on
the other side if the country. This past year while I have come home to visit I have been
surprised by how often I hear the Growlers. From talking to my peers and friends who are
year-long residents In the last year noise and over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field
has exceeded anything they have experienced. All the reasons we have chosen to live
clearly false. The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency noise.
(b)(6)
3310

and Lopez Village. Kind Regards, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3311

The hours between 8 pm and 1 am are critical for sleep as I already have sleep issues
after 1 am. Though I live on the North end of Lopez, vibration and noise impact have
routinely effected my sleep patterns and caused me additional sleeplessness. The EIS
San Juan County should document the extent of this problem. An Alternative that
developed and studied. Kind Regards, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3312

At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully considered. All selected
timelines for completion. a)Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on
page 11 of the scoping booklet) should be modified to minimize routes overpopulated
areas including the south end of Lopez Island to the greatest extent possible. b)Growler
training flights overpopulated areas including San Juan County should be above 3,000
feet elevation. c)Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over North
Puget Sound. d)A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used for noise
suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups andtesting. e)Test, acquire and
Growlers.f)Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at either airfield
Kind Regards, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3313
Lopez Island, 98261

Working at Sperry Peninsula as an outdoor worker, my crew routinely experiences low
flying jets over the property. The noise from this activity forces us to stop working and
cover our ears for the time that sound of the jet noise occurs, which can last around 5
minutes. In addition, one of my husbands clients a wealthy land owner on the South of
Lopez has decided in the last week to move from the islands due to the sounds of the jets
over her South Lopez property. This is a direct loss of income as well as friendship for
him. And I wonder at the impacts on property values. The EIS should address economic
impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Kind
Regards, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3314

We have lived in Lopez Village since 2013. During the past year the noise and
over-flights from the Growlers at Ault Field have been excessive and intrusive. They have
disrupted our lives and those of our neighbors at all times of day and night. We
deliberately chose to live on Lopez Island because its a pastoral place, but the constant
noise and vibrations from the Growlers are threatening the very nature of this island. The
Navy considers San Juan County a no significant impact area but clearly this is not so
when the lives and livelihoods of the citizens of San Juan County are taken into
consideration. To be a good neighbor the Navy must find alternative solutions.
(b)(6)
3315

New changes are occurring in the number, duration and level of flights out of Whidbey as
of 2014-2015. New studies must be implemented with all new changes to Navel activity
changes. This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and should not rely
on,or tier off of,the analysis and Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012
Environmental Assessments. Kind Regards, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3316

- The Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of
(b)(6)
3317

Thank you for taking comments on this important public issue. I first came to Lopez
Island 20 years ago, and the main reason was to enjoy the quiet and natural environment
which has historically existed here. Since then I have purchased property on Lopez
where my family and I are often disturbed and disrupted by the loud noises of jets from
the Whidbey Naval Air Station. The existing number and intensity of naval over-flights is
significant. Expanding naval flights as proposed would have a noticeable and negative
impact on my quality of life on the island as well as the property value of the land I own. I
respectfully request reducing flight operations and frequencies and returning Lopez to its
historically peaceful and quiet state.
(b)(6)
3318

We have lived in Lopez Village since 2013. During the past year the noise and
over-flights from the Growlers at Ault Field have been excessive and intrusive. They have
disrupted our lives and those of our neighbors at all times of day and night. We
deliberately chose to live on Lopez Island because its a pastoral place, but the constant
noise and vibrations from the Growlers are threatening the very nature of this island. The
Navy considers San Juan County a no significant impact area but clearly this is not so
when the lives and livelihoods of the citizens of San Juan County are taken into
consideration. To be a good neighbor the Navy must find alternative solutions. - The
(b)(6)
3319
Seattle, WA 98101
January 9, 2015 EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Atlantic 6506 Hampton Blvd Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS Via
website: www.whidbeyeis.com Dear Project Manager, These comments will supplement
those we submitted on January 3, 2014 during the previous scoping period for the
Growler Airfield Operations at NAS Whidbey Island. The Navy notes that the primary
difference between the current and previous proposal is the potential increase in the
number of aircraft and their use. Therefore, our concerns are similar and greater
regarding visitor experience and resource protection at national parks in the region. Our
previous comments addressed only potential impacts in and around Ebeys Landing
National Historic Reserve. With this comment letter we also want to recognize that other
national park units are now or could be significantly affected by operations from NAS
Whidbey Island. They include San Juan Island National Historical Park (16 miles away),
Olympic National Park (25 miles away), Mount Rainier National Park (95 miles away) and
North Cascades National Park Service Complex (65 miles away). Each of these is or may
be overflown by aircraft using NAS Whidbey Island. The EA-18G Growler aircraft are said
by many to be among the loudest aircraft around. The proposed increase in numbers of
Growlers could mean a significant disturbance to visitors visiting these national park units
and to the wildlife which inhabit them. This would be in conflict with the National Park
Service Organic Act which directs that agency to conserve the scenery and natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in
such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of
future generations. This Congressional mandate should be evaluated and compared
among the alternatives in this EIS. In addition to being nationally recognized resources
and special places, the national parks are important economic assets to the surrounding
communities and the State of Washington. In the case of Olympic National Park, around
which much of the proposed electronic warfare involving the Growlers would occur, a
2014 study for the National Park Service calculated an annual benefit of $220 million in
local impact from park visitation and the source of more than 2700 local jobs. Olympic
National Park saw 3.085 million visitors in 2013, making it the most visited national park
in the Northwest and among the most popular in the country. This and other national
parks are worth a lot just in dollar terms. This value should be considered and compared
among alternatives in this EIS. Currently the Navy is working on four separate
environmental reviews concerning aspects of operations and programs involving aircraft
based at NAS Whidbey Island. They are all inter-related, and should be done in a single
comprehensive environmental impact statement. As described in the presentation at a
Navy public meeting at Port Townsend, the alternatives being considered in this EIS are
all based on potential levels of funding for Growlers. There is no alternative that is
designed around anything other than how many Growlers the Navy may be approved to
buy. Other considerations should include minimizing noise through equipment
modifications, flight routes and hours of operations to reduce and minimize the sound of
aircraft noise for national park visitors and disturbance to wildlife. There should be at
least one alternative which minimizes noise and environmental impacts to national parks
and nearby communities. Almost all of Olympic, Mount Rainier and North Cascades
national parks are Congressionally designated wilderness, where the impact of human
disturbance and machines are to be minimized. The requirements and goals of the 1964
Wilderness Act should be considered when assessing alternatives for flight operations.
Please note that Olympic National Park wilderness includes not only the inland rainforest
and mountain peaks, but also the separate coastal stretch of the park on the Pacific
Ocean. An alternative should be developed which minimizes impact to wilderness within
these national parks. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We look forward to
working with the Navy on protecting America, including her national parks. Sincerely, (b)(6)
3319
3320
,
I am against the Growlers that are being stationed on Whidbey Island. I hear them all day
and it is annoying.
(b)(6)
3321

Dear EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager, I am writing because I believe the planned
expansion for this project is inappropriate for the Puget Sound. As it is the noise from the
current growler jets is uncomfortably loud, often awakening me, as it occurs frequently
after I have gone to bed. A neighbors child asks are they going to bomb us? When I
moved to Port Townsend ten years ago it never occurred to me that I would be living in
the flight path of a busy airport. Had I understood that I would not have moved here Every
time I attend a public meeting regarding the most recent expansion plan for our area you
cite your historic presence on Whidbey Island. However what is not mentioned is that the
population of the Puget Sound was significantly less in 1942. As well, the original mission
was for the re-arming and refueling of Navy patrol planes - operating in defense of Puget
Sound. Not for experimental purposes, not for an ongoing and endless onslaught of all of
the beings who live here. The planes were much smaller, quieter and in smaller numbers
then. It was a much different time and different circumstances. Recently I have learned
that the Navy intends to extend its operations by expanding their sonar testing in our
waters, increasing its airplane numbers in the air and utilizing the public lands in the
Olympic Peninsula for microwave testing- in effect, to use the entire Puget Sound as a
testing zone. These expansion plans are coming fast and furious and many of us are
feeling as if we are in a metaphorical boxing match - with a sonar assault to the jaw, flight
expansion to the nose, increased jet noise to the gut. We are reeling from the punches.
As well, I am afraid that these decisions were reached some time ago and regardless of
what the residents of the Puget Sound say or how many times we express our concerns
that it really doesnt matter - the Navys plans will go forward. Thank you for your
attention. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3322
Lopez, WA 98261
I have lived on southend of Lopez Island for thirty years. I spend much time outdoors
working and playing. Many times this year i have had to cover my ears while outdoors.
The noise levels and frequency are getting much worse and annoying.
(b)(6)
3323
Quilcene, WA 98376
I have lived on the Olympic Peninsula for forty years. I moved here to work, raise a family
and be a part of a pristine, healthy , peaceful environment. It is absolutely outrageous,
unnecessary and a waste of our tax payers money to purchase and use any Growler
aircraft around the Olympic Peninsula or anywhere. There already exists training grounds
for their use and those should be used if any. The Olympic Peninsula is not the place to
see, hear or be exposed to any of the trainings. I am completely opposed to the Growlers
on all levels. It is not worth the negative affects just to line the pockets of a few
contractors and perpetuate the insidious, unsustainable, anti life war machine. NO to
Growlers, NO to Electromagnetic Warfare.
(b)(6)
3324

I am a long-term resident of San Juan County and I am concerned about the effects of
noise from the Whidbey Naval Airstation Growlerws. This noise effects myself, my
neighbors and residents up to 11 miles from my home on the south end of Lopez. Many
of us are retired elderly people who purchased land here to enjoy the natural habitat and
participate in the community. I find that interfacing with co-volunteers in various projects
out-of-doors is becoming more difficult. When growler noise occurs we cannot
communicate clearly, we are tense, and our conversations usually centers on complaints
of the noise and the (suspected) targeting of our population by the U. S. Navy. Please
desist from flying growlers over our land. We have asked this before Iin polite and legal
forums. We deserve to be listened to.
(b)(6)
3325

(b)(6)
Camano Island, Was 98282 January 9, 2015 EA-18G

EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic Attn:
Code EV 21/SS 6506 Hampton Blvd Norfolk, Va 23508 Also http://www.whidbeyeis.com/
Subject: Comment on additional Growlers being put at Whidbey Island Dear Sirs/Madam:
I am a Viet Nam Veteran who supports the Navy and speaks to my congressmen to
assure Armed Forces Budgets. I do not wish to stop the Growlers from being produced or
flown. I simply want the Navy to act responsibly and put the Growlers closer to where
they train not on Whidbey. I understand that many of the squadrons that were moved
here prior to 2005 where expeditionary squadrons who do not land on carriers and the
additional squadrons that are going to be moved here are mostly expeditionary
squadrons. You say this is the sound of freedom but to me it just brings back bad
memories of Viet Nam. We moved here from California in 2013 to buy a house on
Whidbey at Ledgewood Beach. Prior to that my wife came up several times in 2012 and
2013 to buy a house but failed each time. We became aware of the noise issue at
Coupeville. We moved up here and stayed at the Coachmen in for 5 months to access
the affect the noise would have on our house located just outside the 2nd ring. After
attending the meetings in Coupeville (2013) we decided because of the uncertainty of the
projected growlers being moved to Whidbey and what the distribution would be we
decided to move to Camano which is outside the noise zone. We did send a letter to the
Navy after the informational meetings stating that realtors had lied to us and said there
was noise at Coupeville only 2 days a month. We said we believe the Navy should not
add any additional noise at Whidbey and instead move to Moses lake and lease the
airfield there. We also said we were moving to Camano so we wouldnt have any noise.
We moved to Camano and discovered that we have more noise here then we did at the
Coachmen even though we are not in the Noise Zone Map and the County did not give
us the document that was given to those buying on Whidbey stating they are in a noise
zone. Page 2 January 9, 2015- Comment EIS Growler For the following reasons I would
ask that you do not bring any more growlers to Whidbey and consider removing all the
expeditionary squadrons stationed there. 1. While Im typing this at least 7 planes have
gone overhead. I do type slow. However we have noted over the past months over 700
noise events. I classify them as noise events because you get the flights which can range
from 10 a day to 20 a day usually on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, sometimes on
Monday and Friday. Then you add the noise that comes across the sound which I have
recently learned that is due to maintenance. This is an 105 events totally 13 hours of
noise over the last 120 days. Not sequential days. We have misplaced several of our
notebooks. We will tally them and send them to our congressmen and Obama. But Im
sure you know the number of times you go over Camano. 2. The danger represented by
airplanes flying over our house. Please reference the crash at Moses Lake in 2012. That
could be us. 3. The addition of 2500 residents to Whidbey over the next 5 years,
especially those who do not pay payroll taxes, property taxes etc. is a burden on Island
taxpayers. It shifts the burden of infrastructure to the resident taxpayer. 4. There are
endangered species on the Island and also spawning grounds for salmon and other fish.
Having additional flights over the sound is terrible for this sensitive area of Washington. 5.
The altitude of the planes flying over Camano does not decrease the sound level to any
great extent. Mainly because it is heightened by the extra power it takes for the Growler
to climb. My cousins live in the noise zone on Whidbey. The planes go really low but it is
a fast sound. Here the sound is a grumble and it last for a long time, relatively speaking.
You hear the sound after the plane has gone over. 6. Your average sound is not a proper
gauge of what we must endure. It was probably formulated because local ordinances and
OSHA use 70 decibel as illegal and requiring ear protection after this decibel level is
reached. At last years meeting it stated that the growler can go to 128 decibels at low
altitudes this wasnt shown at this years meeting. Steps to be taken to mitigate problem:
1. LAX has soundproofed the houses on the landing pattern to its runways and bought
out the houses under the takeoff pattern. Furthermore they have their planes go out over
the ocean and then turn rather then cut across houses along the coast. The navy could
have their planes go out over the ocean , as they do currently, but instead of doubling
back over Whidbey and then crossing over part of Camano they could come back closer
to their mountain training areas where there are no people. 2. The planes that are going
over my house do not continue across the island , but rather turn up and go over
Stanwood which brings into question why they just dont go up the sound, closer to
Whidbey or over Whidbey. 3. Keep records so that your pilots are not liable to go to low
or put planes into the power mode over Camano. The outside firm hired to do certain
portions of the study ask pilots for anecdotal information such as when they employ
power, the altitude they fly and routes they fly . This is not adequate. Because I can tell
you some planes make very little noise when going up the sound and some make a lot of
noise. I observe two that go up together many days a week and they are low but do not
make as much noise as the ones that are at a higher altitude. Also I see some go what I
would call very slow and they make less noise. I think your pilots could do more to stop
the noise we have to endure. Page 3 January 9, 2015 EIS Comment on Growlers I
appreciate your considering my comments. I hope you will submit a new noise
information to Island County so they can incorporate Camano into the noise so no other
person will be tricked into moving into what they believe is a noise free area. We did all
the research possible and still wound up with daily noise, and this after committing our
entire retirement funds to buying this house. We will never be able to sell because no one
will buy this house knowing that we get jet noise at least 3 days a week. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
3325
(b)(6)
3326

(b)(6)
Camano Island, Wa 98282 January 5, 2015 EA-18G

EIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering command (NAVFAC) Atlantic Attn:
Code EV21/SS 6506 Hampton Blvd. Norfolk, VA 23508 Or http://www.whidbeyeis.com/
SUBJECT ; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 9EIS0 EA-18G GROWLER
AIRFIELD OPERATIONS AT NAVAL AIR STATION WHIDBEY ISLAND Dear
Sirs/Madam: The purpose of this letter is to voice my objections to increasing the number
of growlers at Whidbey. I also request the expeditionary squadrons be removed from
Whidbey because they are a threat to the environment and safety of those who reside on
Camano and the constant noise generated by planes flying over head, noise generated
from the maintenance of these planes which bounces across the sound and this constant
noise may go on for a hour at a time. There is no reason for additional growlers to be
stationed at Whidbey since the proposal is to move expeditionary squadrons and they
do not land on carriers and in fact do there training in the mountains. This letter also
request the espeditionary squadrons moved here in 2005 also be removed to Moses
Lake or anywhere closer to their training fields in the Mountains. LEGAL OBJECTIONS
TO INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS: I I object to the informational process on the basis
that legally was deficient. T hose citizens who are affected, persons of interest ,such as
those who reside on Camano , who experience noise to a greater extent then many
areas on Whidbey, Port Angeles or Coupeville were not notified by mail or legal notice in
the local paper as to the time and place of the informational meetings held at Oak Harbor,
Anacortes, Coupeville ect . regarding the addition of Growlers to the area. 2. I also object
that Camano Island was not a site for an informational meeting when we experience
flights at least three days a week, sometimes as many as 20 in a day , even though
Camano is not shown to be in the noise zone. Port Angeles and Lopez Island not in the
noise zone, are experiencing noise as a result of the maintenance of the Growler were
given informational meetings. The noise associated with the maintenance of the growler
bounces across the sound and can go on for an hour and is more annoying because of
the length of time and the fact it is almost constant. Camano gets both the noise of the
jets going over Camano and the noise produced by Growler maintenance but was not
assigned an informational meeting. 3. I object to the process because it did not include
the relevant facts surrounding the effects caused by the introduction of additional
Growlers being located at Whidbey, which makes commenting impossible beyond saying
the obvious, more noise, danger to citizens and environment is not wanted. Example:
The proposal includes a request for an additional runway and additional planes but it
does not define which way the runways will be situated, the number of additional flights
that will result from the addition of more Growlers or which routes they will take.
Therefore, those commenting cannot give an informed opinion on how this will affect
them or the environment. During last years meetings they said 6000 flights (some other
word was used by the Navy) were conducted during the year. BACKGROUND: We
moved to Whidbey Island from Los Angeles, Ca in November of 2013 and stayed at the
Coachmen Inn, which is in the 2nd ring of the zone map. until Arpil of 2014 when we
purchased a home on Camano. My family is on Whidbey and we preferred to live there.
However, after attending the informational meetings at Coupeville in 2013 we decided
against putting in a bid on the house we were interested in at Ledgewood Beach because
of the noise and the uncertainty of future noise. It is interesting to note that we came up in
November 2013 and stayed at the Coachmen to access the noise level before putting in
a bid for the house on Ledgewood Beach. After attending the Growler Informational
meeting at Coupeville and deciding we did not want to open ourselves up to the potential
of future noise on Whidbey we subsequently submitted a letter to the Navy suggesting
they move to Moses Lake where people and the environment would not be affected nor
put in danger from failed flights because the area is less populated. I also mentioned that
we would be moving to Camano to avoid the noise issue. We did not want to be
subjected to the noise of the Growler and also feared that in the future the noise level
would be increased because of the potential of moving more Growlers to Whidbey. We
studied the noise zone map and all material associated with the Growler and based on
this we bought a house on Camano and moved here in April of 2014. It is interesting to
note that at the informational meeting held in Coupeville I did mention to your staff at the
meeting that we would probably move to Camano to avoid the noise, no one told me
there was more noise on Camano then Whidbey or even warn me there was noise on
Camano. After moving here I discovered planes flew over my house sometimes 25 time a
day ( and maintenance noise occurred for long periods of time, even though I didnt no
what the loud grumbling was back then) Talking to residents who have been here on
Camano longer them we have, it seems the planes never flew over Camano , but in
recent years the flight plans have been switched to go over Camano, the number of
flights increased and this is endangering the residents of Camano and adding increased
noise pollution to an island that is not suppose to have any noise according to noise zone
maps. In my opinion the Navy and Island county are morally and possibly legally
negligent in not notifying those buying on Camano of the noise issue. On Whidbey
buyers, even if not notified by realtors, are notified in escrow and must sign a document
that discloses they are in the noise zone. The noise zone map is actually included.
Camano and Whidbey are both in Island County so it seems someone is keeping secrets
. Those buying property on Camano are not notified by having to sign this document
disclosing they are in a noise zone, probably because they are not actually in a defined
noise zone. WHICH BRINGS UP THE ISSUE OF WHY WE ARE EXPEREINCING JET
NOISE TO A GREATER DEGREE THEN I EXPEREINCED ON WHIDBEY WHEN I
STAYED AT THE COACHMEN FOR 5 MONTHS. This coupled with the fact Camano is
not shown on the Navys noise zone map confirms that Camano was never intended to
be affected by jet noise and the increased noise and number of Growlers has
exacerbated the noise issue. When I questioned a Navy representative at the recent
informational meeting at Coupeville as to why Camano was not on the Noise Zone Map
he suggested that the altitude at which the growlers flew when the reach Camanomight
be a factor. At the recent informational meeting at Coupeville (2014) I questioned why
Camano was not shown to be on the noise zone map considering the number of flights
that went over Camano and down the Sound between Camano and Whidbey. A navy
representative suggested to me that the reason that Camano may not appear in on the
Noise Zone Map may be because of the altitude of the growlers flying over Camano. rely
on the altitude. However the hard fact is the Growlers are much noisier then the Prowler ,
contrary to tests conducted by the Navy contractor, and the altitude does not diminish the
noise because in order to climb the Growler has to kick in more power, a noise similar to
afterburners which adds to the noise and extends the length the noise beyond just the
time it flies overhead. Finally, YOU CANNOT INCREASE THE NOISE AND NUMBER OF
FLIGHTS ON WHIDBEY which wind up going over Camano WITHOUT CHANGING THE
3326
NOISE ZONE MAP , AND THIS IS NOT BEING DONE , HENSE THE MEETINGS ARE
NOT INFORMATIONAL and the entire process is flawed. INDIVIDUAL POINTS
AGAINST ADDING ADDITIONAL GROWLERS: 1. The number of flights over the Sound
affects the environment of this sensitive area of Washington. According to the Navy
there were 6000 flights in 2013. Island County specifically protects the northern sea
lion, bald eagle, peregrine falcon gray whale marbled murrelet by Island County
Ordinance 17.02 b. The new ordinance as well as the old ordinance shows the peregrine
falcon Pandion haliaetus and Castilleia levisecta, golden indian paintbrush as being
endangered. The other species that are protected by Island County are as follows:
northern sea lion Eumetoias jubatus; bald eagle Haliaectys leucocephalus; gray whale
Eschrichius glaucus; marbled murrelet Brachyranphus marmoratus marmoratus. (I wont
list the plant life threated ect. ) The pollution by the gas used to fly 6000 flights, and the
maintenance products cannot be ignored in how it affects the environment. These issues
are not being addressed by an outside contractor that is specifically trained to access the
effects of additional aircraft and in fact the effect of the current aircraft, but rather I was
informed that Navy personnel located on the Whidbey air base is checking out the affect
on the animal and plant life. This is not acceptable. It is not only the endangered animals
and plants life listed, but the spawning areas of the salmon and other species that are
defined in wetland ordinances and other places that must be addressed. And these
would only be known by those who are trained in biology and environmental sciences. 2.
There are mitigating steps taken by other airports to benefit those affected by the noise
generated by aircraft which the Navy is not implementing. A.The houses that were under
the take off pattern at LAX were all bought out by LAX. The houses removed. The houses
under the landing strip were all soundproofed at airport expense. B. The planes taking off
from LAX go out over the Ocean and then go down the coast not over the houses located
down the coast. On Whidbey the planes take off into the wind into the ocean and then
they double back over Whidbey and go across the Sound and over Camano supposedly
to get to their training areas in the Mountains. They could just continue out over the
ocean and come back in where there are no populated areas to do their training over the
Olympic Mountains. Even more efficient would be to locate the Growlers expeditionary
squadrons, that do no landings on aircraft carriers , over at the Olynpic Mountain /
Moses lake. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE EXPDITIONERY SQUADRONS TO BE
HERE SINCE THEY WILL NOT LAND ON CARRIERS. 3. The addition of 2500 residents
to Whidbey over the next 5 years which will follow the increase of Growlers puts a burden
on an Island that has limited water and money for infrastructure maintenance. Navy
Personnel use the roads and water resources ect but pay no payroll taxes, property taxes
ect. The tax burden of the infrastructure is put on the Island residents. For example the
water system of Oak Harbor is suppose to be updated the NAVY will not help with this
cost. 4. The Navy should not be put in charge of making this decision . There past
decisions seem to ignore the environment and quality of life of those living on Whidbey.
In 2005 a memo was issued by a Deputy of Defense that stopped the expeditionary
squadrons from being removed from Whidbey. I would also like an investigation into why
this decision was made since it was not rational and suggests that others be involved in
making these decisions. It is ridiculous that the expeditionary squadrons were not
removed in 2005 since there is no objective reason for them to be located on Whidbey
since they do not land on carriers This was done without an EIS being performed. It is
not logical to shift more expeditionary squadrons to Whidbey instead of Moses lake
where the environment would not be affected to the same degree and no harm would be
3326
caused to people since the area is not populated. They have a landing strip ect that could
be leased. 5. As mentioned above the decision to NOT move the expeditionary
squadrons was made by one deputy director in 2005 without any EIS being conducted. I
would like that decision reviewed and the decision to move the additional growlers
suggested at the current informational meetings as well as the oRyans being moved
here without my being notified with a light put on the financial aspect of the decision. I
would like to have an investigation into the personal financial ties of this deputy director
and the financial interest of other high officials and Navy personnel (retired) to Whidbey.
They say follow the money. The decisions to move these aircrafts to Whidbey are not
based on any objective reasons since the weather conditions at Whidbey do not affect
training of expeditionary squadrons since these planes do not land on aircraft carriers It
was clearly to the detriment of residents on Whidbey and the environment , so it is
reasonable to question the financial benefit to this one person and other retired navy
personnel. The only other reason to station these three expeditionary squadrons on
Whidbey and request all Navy aircraft be located at Whidbey is to give those pilots and
other navy personnel a resort town to live at instead of the desert. I would not deny them
a resort community except it is ruining my life , putting me in danger (please note the
crash of a training growler in 2012 at Moses lake) and also destroying the environment of
the sound. Most people do not get to live at a resort until they retire. They must live close
to their jobs until they retire. I lived in Los Angeles with its smog ect until I retired.
+However, the Navy seems to be arranging for its personnel to get resort living before
retirement. I suggest the navy personnel should not be given preferencial living
arrangements at the detriment of ordinary citizens, esspecially those who are retired and
cannot afford to leave. 6. The Navy has erected new housing. Large beautiful houses
with a great view. Hopefully the houses are not single dwellings because this would
indicate a boondoggle. I suggest this housing be given to wounded warriors , they
deserve beautiful housing. (I would also like the building o f these houses investigated,
they are hugh and overlook the ocean. How is the navy spending tax payer money?) 7.
Having the Navy personnel on Whidbey check into the impact on animals and plant life is
not sufficient. 8. Having the outside firm hired to do certain portions of the study is
questionable. There plan is to ask pilots for anecdotal information such as when they
imploy power , the altitude they fly and routes they fly . This is not adequate.ITS LIKE
HAVING THE FOX PUT IN SECURITY FOR THE HEN HOUSE. Points specific to
Camano. 1. I have kept a record of flights over my house or up the sound . The record
does not include all flights. I was gone for several hours each day. In the last few months
I have not kept accurate records because it is just to much trouble to run and record
every flight. The Navy would have records ,I think. The record of the number of flights of
growlers I have noted is enough to make my case for being included in the noise zone
and this should be considered. Either stop flying over Camano or warn residents who are
buying of the noise so they dont spend there entire retirement savings to buy a house
that they certainly could not sell because of the noise issue. If I decided to sell I would not
let anyone buy this house without telling them of the number of flights over the
house.(The number of flights I have recorded takes to much time to calculate and I have
misplaced one of my journals. Christmas took up my time.) I would just like to make it
clear that planes fly over Camano every Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and many
times on Mondays and sometimes on Friday. They do not fly on weekends.They fly at
least 10 times a day and up to 29 times a day over camano. The following is a quick
tabulation. (The addition may be off a little, I dont have a calculator) It does not take into
3326
account that I am gone to Whidbey many times all day to see my family ect. It lists the
entire month but does not allow for the fact that flights occur mostly three days a week so
the total number does not indicate the annoyance that takes place knowing that 29 noise
events can occur in a day.. Total 569 flights plus 105 noise events attributed to
maintenance noise that accounts for at least 13 hours of constant noise during the
months listed below. TOTAL NUMBER OF NOISE EVENTS BELOW IS 674 OVER 120
DAYS 2014 Flights Number of Noise events associated with Maintenance Constant
Hours of Noise (Maintenance) April 28-30 29 ? 2 Hour May 1-31 105 20 2 1/2 June 2
-11 97 15 August 18 -29 137 42 Sept 9-2 thru 9-4 13 Sept 9-22 thru 9-30 51 6 Oct 1
thru 30 80 15 3 hours Nov 1 thru 30 57 5 hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 120 days 569 105 13 hours
(Number of days include weekends ect where they dont fly at all) 2. Your average sound
is a ridiculous concept. Number of flights in a 24 hour period. Weighted higher for those
after a certain time ect. Im sure it is implemented because local noise laws state that you
cannot have noise levels over 70.decibles. It was shown in tables at the last informational
meeting that the decibel level of the Growler was 128 decibles on landing or taking off I
cant remember. The noise levels were not given at the current informational meeting. As
mentioned above the increase in the number of aircraft at Whidbey and the increased
noise level of the growler especially that attributed to the noise associated with its
climbing makes the noise zone maps no longer viable. AS STATED ABOVE WE LIVED
AT THE COACHMEN FOR 6 MONTHS AND NEVER HEARD THE AMOUNT OF NOISE
WE ARE EXPERIENCING ON CAMANO. The Coachmen is in the second loudest ring
on the Noise zone map. The final issue would be why the Navy would want to station so
many of one resource at a single venue. Considering the attack at Fort Hood and terrorist
attacks in general it seems more appropriate to spread out the Navys resources. I AM
NOT ASKING THAT NAVY BUDGET BE DECREASED OR THE NEW GROWLERS
SHOULD NOT BE BUILT I AM PRO ARMED FORCES. I JUST WANT THEM LOCATED
TO AN AREA WHERE IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE. Please consider the above points
and remember people first. It is not right that the Navy makes the lives of those on
Whidbey and Camano miserable and decreases the value of there properties. Especially
since most people are retirees. Sincerely, (b)(6)
3326
(b)(6)
3327

I sincerely believe the the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station is remiss in its purported
levels of noise the we, here on Lopez Island experience. I request that ALL growler
activity be stopped or removed to a distant place until a neutral, third-party organization
can determine the actual decibel levels which we humans and wildlife are experiencing
here. Not until the Navy has a realistic reading of growler noise here, can we have a
respectful dialog.
(b)(6)
3328
Victoria bc, Canada ,

Please no more jets! It is too noisy across the strait here in victoria already. I only found
out today that even more noise was likely from our southern neighbour. Enough is
enough please.
(b)(6)
3329
Lopez Island, 98261

I speak for a family of eight citizen taxpayers. As WWII Air Force veteran, I can speak
with some authority this to the extent that although I support the Navy and its operation,
do think that flight patterns and controllers' options can be modified to mitigate the
onerous noise problem. (b)
(6)
(b)(6)
3330

I have lived on Lopez Island since 2008. In the last year noise and over flights from the
Growlers at Ault field have significantly eroded our quality of life, and increased health
hazards on Lopez Island due to their intensity, volume, unpredictable timing and duration.
The reasons we have chosen to live here are being degraded by the constant noise,
vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County
(SJC) a no significant impact area. This is clearly false. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012
Exposure Level (SEL) and Peak Sound Level (L max ) in addition to Ldn. Document the
flights. A Public Relations whitewash will NOT be an acceptable substitute for the
extensive analysis and reporting being requested by citizens and communities
surrounding Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3331
Seattle, WA 98102
I've been coming the the San Juans my whole life and have never been disturbed by any
noise so much as the rumbles apparently created by these tests. I don't say this to
complain, just to give an indication or data point as to the reach and intensity of the noise.
And if I'm freaking out up on Orcas Island, I can't imagine what the effect must be on the
wildlife in the area. I realize these tests are not how it would be ordinarily but the impact
is surely too great even at a tenth of what we're experiencing. Thanks for your
consideration.
(b)(6)
3332

I attended your December 4th Scoping meeting. You promised to do an EIS, and we met
some attractive young ladies who said they would be conducting it. From their discussion
of the issues, they were clearly in sympathy with the Navy and not independent of it, and
clearly not scientists. Under NEPA, an EIS must be prepared by independent scientific
experts in each relevant field involved. The expertise of these young ladies would be a
joke. An EIS usually take years; you are proposing to have a draft ready in 3 months.
Aren't you breaking NEPA rules here? Furthermore, you have limited your EIS to Growler
jets at Whidbey Island, ignoring the serious dangers to endangered species of birds at
Olympic National Park and state DNR lands, who, when nesting, might well remain for
extended periods within the target range of your ground emitters. This alone is a good
reason for the project to be forbidden. Other serious dangers await this
UNESCO-designated World Heritage Site, carefully never named in your handout at the
scoping meeting. Your handout implied that since you had been the area 40 years, the
project would be just a little more of the same nearly unnoticeable presence. This is like
comparing a slap to a beheading. For 260 days a year, for 8-16 hours a day, up to 118 of
your Growlers, flying in groups of 3, will dump 12.5 metric tons of CO2 PER HOUR, 23%
more than the ANNUAL emissions of a WA citizen, on an extensive old growth forest
where 11 major river systems flow, and examples of endangered species abound. Isn't
this of a different enough magnitude of ecosystem exposure that, for this reason alone, it
should be avoided without further consideration of the project? NEPA requires a serious
look at the alternatives. This serious, predictable environmental damage to a unique,
irreplaceable public treasure isn't necessary at all. You already train these pilots in these
skills at Mountain Home Air force Base in Idaho. Poor babies, the pilots must commute
there. Why not simply have them move to Idaho? (The military moves its soldiers and
sailors around freely all the time.) Then no commute will be necessary, and you will have
achieved the meager "savings" that seem so important to you that you would sacrifice
members of endangered species, a park relied on for soul-restoring recreation in nature
by we who live here and the tourists who are an important part of our economy ! Really!!!
The noise of the Growlers needs to be re-figured. Unlike the earlier jets that your figures
of 113 decibels at 1000 feet, Growlers can generate 150 decibels. The fish & Wildlife Svc
Biological Opinion of 2010 was based on the noise levels of earlier jets, and thus cannot
be applied to your expanded operations with threesomes of Growlers coming and going
in tandem. Have you calculated noise in decibels of the Growler threesomes (rather than
your absurd and deceptive measurement of a single Growler engine!) at altitudes from
6000 feet down to 1200 feet, and asked the Fish and Wildlife Svc to run these new
figures and make a new opinion? If not, why not? Why have you limited this EIS to only
the impacts of the 36 new Growler jets, and the entire fleet of 118 Growlers that will be
stationed at Whidbey? Where is the EIS on the 82 Growlers already present there? Was
one ever made? If not, why not? I await your answers, as many of us do, with
considerable unease. If you manage to go ahead with the project as planned, you may
never come back and look at the damage you have done, while we who live here will live
with the heartbreak you have created for us. You might enjoy feeling powerful in winning,
but too much of that kind of thing is being done all over the earth as the environment in
being destroyed piece by piece. Please have a conscience!
(b)(6)
3333
Victoria, BC Canada, WA V8P4B2

I am a nervous wreck each time the random rumbles occur from the Growlers of Whidbey
Island. I inland live on Vancouver Island -about a fifteen minute drive from the ocean.
Hearing these constant rumbles is very unsettling. I understand that the Navy is
considering adding more Growlers at this site. I would request that you investigate the
impact of the sound coming from the Whidbey Naval airbase on your immediate and
distant neighbours. Thank you for your consideration.
(b)(6)
3334
Victoria, V8N 1S7

I live in a peaceful suburb of Victoria and paid a handsome price for this quiet. These
noises are a constant disturbance to me. They are so loud that even my cat spooks when
she hears them. I suspect that they wake me from my sleep but hard to prove! I am so
frustrated because I have no recourse to this scary situation. We keep thinking it is an
earthquake.
(b)(6)
3335

My name is (b)(6)
I live and work in Port Townsend Wa. I have lived here since
1991. The noise and disruption that navy flights from NAS Whidbey has been a constant
burden on citizens of this area. If the navy adds another 36 growlers to the fleet of 82
existing growlers at Whidbey our quality of life here will be destroyed. I already have to
wear hearing aids and can not afford more hearing loss. My sleep is interrupted at night
by growler operations and health risks associated with sleep disturbance is well
documented . The Draft EIS that is being formulated should include 1. Ground based
activities associated with thePacific NW Electronic Warfare EA. 2. The 36 new and 82
already existing growler jets 3. Include C weighted sound measurement and analysis. 4.
Incorporate supplemental noise measurements including SEL, L max and Ldn. 5.
Document the projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and L max in 5
dB increments throughout the area. 6. Sound measurements and analysis should include
afterburner noise 7. The health effects of startle reactions in residents of San Juan,
Whatcom,Skagit,Jefferson and Island counties. 8. The EIS should not rely on or tier off of
the records of decision for 2005 and 2012 EA's. 9. Citizens should be notified in advance
of operations 10. Effects of Growler noise on children should be included. 11. Flight
training should not be allowed from 2000-0800 hours. 12. Alternate bases should be
evaluated to take the 36 extra growlers. 13. Mitigation measures for flight paths, elevation
restrictions and noise levels should be used. 14. Economic impacts such as loss of value
of property , negative impacts on tourism and quality of living for affected residents of
surrounding counties. 15. The issue of fuel dumping also needs to be addressed . Fuel
dumped at 8000 feet of elevation will drift with the prevailing winds and pollute air , land
and water far from the dump site
(b)(6)
3336
Ward, CO 80481
I spend considerable time at least every other month on Frost Island. I'm a biologist and
the author of a forth coming book on the natural history of the Salish Sea. In researching
this book, I gained a much better understanding of the evolving science of noise pollution
both for wildlife and for people. It is not inconsiderable and of grave concern as it
continues to accelerate both above and below the water. It would seem absolutely
essential that any EIS for Growler Airfield Operation include approaches to mitigating
noise pollution by adopting procedures that take atmospheric conditions and sensitive
environmental zones into consideration. Thank you!
(b)(6)
3337
Victoria,
The Growlers taking off sound just like the characteristic low rumbling that precedes an
earthquake.
(b)(6)
3338
Victoria, V8Y 2S2

The current noise level from these flights is very disturbing to our family...we have a
youth with complex needs who routinely misinterprets the noise as thunder, with
considerable anxiety being the result. We oppose an increase in the frequency of flights
and ensuing noise pollution!!!
(b)(6)
3339

My wife and I have lived on Lopez Island for 33 years, and I lived here an additional 5
years before that. It has been a place of natural beauty, a peaceful rural community,
where we have worked and raised our daughter. In the past year, the tranquility has been
shattered by the sudden intense noise and deep pitched vibrations of the Growlers flying
anywhere in the sky even at a considerable distance from overhead. I have been
impacted in our home near Hummel Lake, at my photography studio in Lopez Village,
and when I travel around the island. This is a close-knit island community and Im also
very troubled that our friends on the south end have lost their sense of home in the
unpredictable, continuous run-ups of the Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County
an area of no significant impact. Please spend some time monitoring and staying on our
island for several days and you will understand why there are so many levels of VERY
significant impact! I urge that the following be taken into consideration: - The Navy should
2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Thank you. (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3340

I moved to Lopez Island in 2008 to enjoy my retirement in the peace and tranquility of the
San Juan Islands through which I have sailed for over 45 years. In the past year the
noise of the new Growler aircraft have violated our airspace and threaten to destroy our
way of life and local economy. The Navy should be implementing immediate noise
mitigation to reduce the noise impacts of Growler operation and training flights on citizens
throughout the region including San Juan County. In preparing an Environmental Impact
Proposed Alternatives states, In this section agencies shall: ... (f) Include appropriate
in the Record of Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion. a)Growler training
flight paths from NAS Whidbey Island should be modified to minimize routes over
b)Growler training flights over populated areas including San Juan County should be
above 3,000 feet elevation. c)Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights
over North Puget Sound. d)A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used
airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier
Approaches (CCA). The Navy must address its lawful responsibilities to consider all the
environmental and health impacts of present Growler operations prior to the addition of
further aircraft operations at NAS Whidbey Island. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3341

I live in Port Townsend across the water from Whidbey Island. I have become
increasingly concerned about the US Navy's military expansion into the lives of all those
who live on the Olympic Peninsula.This letter is to address the addition of 36 more
EA-18G growler jets to the existing 82 already on Whidbey Island NAS. But it also
addresses the effect of these additional and current number of jets that might be flying
over Olympic National Forest and Park attempting to locate electromagnetic targets if the
US Forest Service gives permission to use forest service roads for the EW emitter trucks.
Just the fact that the public is told that these are separate issues raises a flag and upon a
small amount of research I have learned that this is illegal in that proper NEPA processes
are not being followed. These are clearly related issues and must be treated as such. I
keep hearing about the jets being the sound of freedom and that the training is for the
protection of American citizens. Yet, twice this week on walks around Fort Worden in Port
Townsend I was stopped dead in my tracks because of the most ominous, threatening
rumbling. It felt like an impending outburst from a huge explosion that was going to engulf
me. I actually found myself backing up. Now is that the sound of freedom I keep hearing
about? The sound that instills fear in Americans? The sound that will keep me safe while
terrorizing me here in the US while I am taking a daily walk? How is that protecting us? I
felt real fear. And I mean fear. It's a feeling I have had only a couple of times in my life
and it is heart stopping. If the US Navy wants support from its citizens it needs to start
showing some consideration. The obviousness of scheduling comment periods during the
Christmas holidays is bewildering. A 45 day comment period during the Christmas
holidays is pretty much equal to giving people an actual 15 day period Notification
procedures have been outrageously unfair and possibly illegal. This is consideration
given to the American people from our US Navy? With all the responsibilities and
pressures of the holidays no one has time to read and decipher numerous pages of an
obtuse document. The navy needs to give accurate sound measurements. Fuel dumping
has not been addressed, but has been acknowledged by the navy. Evaluation must be
made of the impact of these growlers flying over the Olympic National Forest and Park.
Not in a separate EA but in this EIS supplement. And last but not least, rude and
threatening comments made by Navy pilots on community websites created to
disseminate information to educate American citizens relating to US Navy EA's and
EIS's. Totally uncalled for and totally unprofessional. How does all that fit in with
"protecting" American citizens?
(b)(6)
3342
Victoria , V8v 2x1

The sound of these planes disrupts the quiet enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood,
both day and night. It's sounds like and extremely large truck trying to get down our street
or an earthquake.
(b)(6)
3343

I live in Port Townsend. I moved here years ago at no small expense, because of the
beauty and diversity of the Olympic Peninsula; the quiet, pastoral way of life; and the
abundant opportunities to enjoy relatively pristine waters and lands. I am deeply afraid
that these rare qualities will be lost, or at least severely damaged, by the proposed
expansion of Navy activities that more than doubling the Growler fleet would allow. The
huge impacts in our airspace, on our public lands, and in offshore waters will
detrimentally affect not only humans, but wildlife that dwells in those realms. In the past
several years, noise from Growler jets has increased in frequency and intensity for many
communities. At times during the summer, in particular, it has been nearly deafening. I
personally react to this noise intrusion with increased heart rate and a stress response; it
puts me on edge and makes me nervous. Regarding the noise impacts of the proposed
action: Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was
support proposed actions in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in four ways: A. In
the 2012 EA, Figure 3-4, Projected 2013 DNL Noise Contours for Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville indicates that San Juan County (SJC) is outside the affected area. This does
not reflect citizen experience. Residents experience Growler activity that is loud and
frequency sounds have deleterious health impacts beyond annoyance. Growler sound
days a week. The noise experienced during Growler training flights is intermittent, and
occurs in a region with very low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside
measurement). This is lower than the quiet suburban neighborhood background noise
level cited in the Wyle report for the 2012 EA. The startle factor is a component of the
adverse health impacts that would be better represented by a short duration noise
measurement. The EIS analysis should incorporate supplemental noise measurements
5dB increments throughout the impacted areas, including San Juan County. Reference:
Replacement Metric Research, Final Report, 14 June 2011, Section 6.1, last paragraph.
D. Furthermore, noise measurements and projections in the EAs assume that
afterburners are not in use. However, afterburners are used at times including takeoffs
and FCLPs. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should include afterburners or
the Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the Record of Decision (ROD) to not
use afterburners in training flights. As an American citizen, of course I want our country to
be militarily secure, but we as a people have already sacrificed considerable areas of
public land to bases, airfields, military ranges, etc. I simply do not understand why one of
the other many areas in the Western US already dedicated to military activity cannot be
used to accommodate the Navys purported needs. And I cannot accept that this little
corner of the country should be sacrificed and transformed into a militarized zone.
3343
(b)(6)
3344
Victoria, v8y1y1
I find it more than upsetting to have my children disrupted, dog barking and china cabinet
and wall hangings noisily vibrating throughout my home in Canada when the U.S. Navy is
doing maneuvers. This has being going on for years now. It used to be only during the
day, but now I have my dog barking, children awakening and walls shaking past 11pm at
night. Please do take note that this is quite a subject of maddening conversation across
the straight on Vancouver Island.
(b)(6)
3345
Olympia, WA 98502
Scoping Comments on the U.S. Navy EIS for the proposed increase in EA-18G Growler
Operations in Washington State I am the attorney for Hard Wired for Safety (HWS), a
non-profit, public benefit corporation registered in Washington State since 2014. On
behalf of HWS, I submit the following comments regarding scoping for the proposed
increase in EA-18G Growler Operations in Washington State. Many of our members live,
work, recreate, hike, fish, or travel in areas of Olympic National Park, Olympic National
Forest, and/or Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Island, and San Juan Counties that will
be adversely affected by any increase in the number of EA-18G Growler Aircraft based in
Washington State. These members are already being adversely affected by the current
number of EA-18Gs using NASWI, the impacts of which have not been sufficiently
evaluated in any environmental document. HWS challenges that the scope of proposed
EIS is much too limited to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
That act requires all federal agencies to prepare an EIS whenever they undertake any
significant action, and further stipulates that all activities that are functionally related must
be included. As a preliminary matter, the 2012 Final Environmental Assessment on your
website proposed an increase of Prowler and Growler aircraft using NASWI from 12 total
to a maximum of 26 total. The No Action Alternative begins with the assumption that 82
Growler aircraft will use NASWI, 45 carrier-based aircraft and 37 land-based aircraft. It
appears that there is no environmental analysis for increasing the land-based aircraft
from 26 to 37 or for the 45 carrier-based aircraft using NASWI. Thus, you need to modify
your No Action Alternative to begin with the level of use considered in the 2012 Final
Environmental Assessment and then modify your analysis of Alternatives to reflect the
revised No Action Alternative. The geographic area proposed to be covered by the EIS is
limited to the Whidbey Island area generally, and to landings, takeoffs, and touch and go
training at Ault and OLF fields. In this regard, a diagram on the left side of the Growler
Operations page of the Scoping Meeting Guide is most telling. That diagram includes
three flight paths that extend to the west or southwest of the area shown as follows:
Those flight paths appear to include a path to the Navys proposed Pacific Northwest
Electronic Warfare Range (EWR). If flight paths to or from the EWR are included, then
the full impacts of those flight paths must be analyzed in the EIS and mitigating
conditions proposed. If these flight paths do not include all possible flight paths to or from
the EWR for the Growler aircraft, then such flight paths should be added and analyzed in
the EIS and mitigating conditions proposed. We suggest that mitigating conditions direct
that flight paths only be allowed that stay as far away from all land masses (except
Whidbey Island) as possible with allowed cruising altitudes regulated to minimize noise
on the ground. In general, the impacts of increasing Growler operations extend as far as
the Growlers fly. Under NEPA those impacts must be evaluated in the EIS both in the
EWR. Because that was not done in the Navys Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed EWR, it must be done now. This is also necessary under the 1988 Master
Agreement between the Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture.
That Master Agreement requires the Forest Service to study both the impacts of the
directly associated with the land based training. We are mindful that the Navys EA for
the EWR states at Page 2-8: All of the EW training activities and locations that would be
demonstrates it was not evaluated in the NWTT either. HWS expects the Navy in the
proposed EIS to evaluate the impacts of the Growlers, both in the area between Whidbey
Island and the proposed EWR, and in the area of the proposed EWR, with the same
intensity and specificity it evaluates the impacts of the Growlers in the Whidbey Island
area. In this regard, a diagram on the right side of the Growler Operations page of the
Scoping Meeting Guide is helpful. It shows a detailed portrayal of the flight paths of
planes using the OLF for Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP). A copy is shown below.
It is commendable that the Navy has gone to such extents to study the impacts of the 36
plus new Growlers at OLF. However, the same detailed portrayal of flight paths of planes
going to and returning from, and using the proposed EWR, is essential for a proper
evaluation of the impacts in those locations. Not only should the flight paths be shown in
the Environmental documents, but also mitigating conditions should be established to
limit the use of all of the Growlers to the analyzed flight paths during training. Because
there are 15 mobile emitter sites in the proposed EWR, and one fixed emitter site, there
3345
are essentially 16 OLFs in the proposed EWR. A detailed portrayal of flight paths for each
of the 16 proposed emitter sites is needed. The same is true of every possible flight path
to and from the proposed EWR. With neither the NWTRC EIS nor the NWTT EIS having
evaluated Electronic Combat in the Olympic MOAs, or aircraft flights in the area between
Whidbey Island and those MOAs, the impacts of the 82 or so Growlers currently at
NASWI, as well as the proposed 36 new Growlers, must now be evaluated in the
proposed EIS. Prior to preparing an EIS as suggested above, the Navy should consider
that the Master Agreement referred to above authorized military use of National Forest
lands only if that use is compatible with other uses and in conformity with applicable
forest plans, provided the Department of Defense determines and substantiates that
lands under its administration are unsuitable or unavailable. NASWI is already
conducting electronic warfare training at several Department of Defense bases in the
Northwest that include restricted airspace and nearly half a million acres of land. Only
Forest should qualify for use for the proposed EWR. In the proposed EIS, the Navy must
also consider the impacts related to both parts of Electronic Combat Electronic
Surveillance and Electronic Attack. In the informational meetings held in Forks and Port
Angeles to explain the proposed EWR, the Navy repeatedly stressed that training for
Electronic Attack would not take place in the proposed EWR. Capt. Michael Nortier said
the same in the Commentary mentioned above. The official documents say otherwise.
Specifically: Section 2.1.2 of the EA for the proposed EWR, says The activities of the
Proposed Action center on two divisions of EW, known as electronic warfare support (ES)
and electronic attack (EA); Section 1.3 of the EA for the proposed EWR, and the related
interoperable, wellmaintained, and supported; and The Proposed Action section of the
Fall 2014 A Guide to the Scoping Meeting (for the subject EIS) says The Navy is
proposing to increase electronic attack (VAQ) capabilities by adding up to 36 aircraft to
support an expanded VAQ mission and training at NAS Whidbey Island. The VAQ
Mission and Training section of the above mentioned Guide says The missions of the
VAQ squadrons include electronic surveillance and attack against enemy radar and
3345
documents. NEPA, however, does not allow for that exception. HWS is encouraged by
the statement in the above mentioned Guide that: A noise assessment will be conducted
as part of the EIS and it will include a supplemental noise analysis, a potential
hearing-loss analysis, and an assessment of non-auditory health effects. The
supplemental noise analysis will include an evaluation of sleep disturbance, indoor
speech interference, and classroom learning interference. The potential hearing loss
analysis will focus on any portion of the local population that may be exposed to noise
levels greater than 80 DNL. Lastly, the assessment of non-auditory health effects will
consist of a comprehensive literature review. These studies, however, must be done with
real noise level data obtained from actual on ground measurements under the actual,
specifically located flight paths that the Growlers will travel, wherever they travel, and at
whatever power levels they travel, including all times when their afterburners are
operating and considering the maximum number of Growlers that will contribute to noise
impacts at the same time and same place. These studies must also be done by time of
day and by time of year. This latter consideration is particularly important in relation to
nesting seasons for endangered birds and tourist seasons for Olympic National Park and
surrounding areas. It is not sufficient to assume that training will take place at a constant
number and duration of flights throughout the year, unless in fact it does. These studies
should include C-Weighted sound measurements and analysis, they must incorporate
3345
public to comment. Because the impacts of the expansion of the Growler operations will
increase the impacts on the EWR, these increased impacts should also be addressed in
the proposed EIS. To that end, HWS hereby adds to the record for this EIS scoping all of
the comments previously submitted by any person to
comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us or otherwise submitted to the FS
regarding the Pacific Northwest Warfare Range Environmental Assessment prepared by
the Navy. The proposed EIS should give careful consideration to mitigating condition
requirements for the Growler operations that reduce adverse environmental impacts from
the training uses of the Growlers to the minimum possible. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Olympia WA 98502 Attorney for HWS
3345
(b)(6)
3346

I have lived in Jefferson County for 35 years. The tranquility and natural beauty of the
Olympic Peninsula is the primary reason I moved here. I am very concerned about the
increasing noise of growler jets over my home and the prospect that the noise will
continue grow unbearable as the number of jets at the Whidbey Island air base expands.
However I am even more concerned that this expansion of operations on Whidbey Island
is part of a broader plan use the Olympic Peninsula to conduct include electron magnetic
training operations, and this will have a directly impact the people who live here and the
Peninsulas unique natural ecosystem and its wildlife. It is deeply disturbing to hear that
these operations will be conducted within our own Olympic National Forest and Park. I
am aware that this comment period is limited to topics related growler jet noise only. I
strongly object to this separation of comment periods, especially since the period when
comments were taken on using the Olympic Peninsula for electromagnetic training ended
before the public became fully aware of this proposed project and had no time to
respond. This makes a mockery of allowing public input on such a serious and potentially
damaging proposal. The Growler aircraft should be made to be quieter, as commercial
jets have been. Jet aircraft can deafen people, create health disorders and interfere with
convalescence from illness. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the
residents in the impacted area should document the extent of this problem. The EIS
should fully evaluate other alternatives used at air bases where noise has been a
problem. Every avenue needs to be explored for protecting our population from health
impacts caused by the excessive these planes produce. The plan to conduct this entire
operation over our pristine Olympic Peninsula must be reevaluated. These military
operations may have been rationalized as a tool to defend ourselves against attack, but
judging from our nations recent history, their actual purpose is in preparation for an
aggressive attack on a country with resources the US would like to control. The American
people do not benefit from this militarism, and those of living on the Olympic Peninsula
will pay an especially high price.
3347
,
I am opposed to the relocation to and operation from Whidbey NAS of large numbers of
EA18 aircraft. There are a number of concerns which your EIS seeks to whitewash. To
name a few: the noise produced by the new craft greatly exceeds that of the Prowler. My
neighbors and I now have to listen to the incessant rumbling from early morning until after
dark. Second, the resident pod of Orca whales in the San Juan Island are not just
underwater creatures, they also spend lots of time on the surface. Your EIS doesn't even
pretend to deal with issues surrounding noise induced disruption to these animals except
to posit (in a throwaway line) that the salmon won't be affected so the whales will be
unaffected because they can still eat. And of course fuel dumping 'at sea' has the
potential to mess about with the water quality as well. Also the EIS doesn't address the
risks posed to navigation by ocean going vessels in the Straight of Juan de Fuca. You
should be aware of plans by a Texas based company to increase shipments of crude oil
(actually bitumen) from present levels to as many as 30 ships per month from Vancouver
Canada through the Straight. One pilot error (forgetting to turn off electronics for
example) could contribute to a marine disaster bigger than the Exxon Valdez affair in
Alaska, and visited upon America's good neighbors in Canada. But the immediate
impression we have here is that the Navy has mounted psychological warfare on all of us
civilians in the Puget Sound / St of Juan de Fuca region by mounting a version of the
fabled Chinese water torture technique (albeit much louder). I say no.
(b)(6)
3348
Victoria, V8Y1Y3
To whom it may concern, I live in Victoria, BC, and the noise associated with the
Growlers is extremely loud and can be heard all over the city. I would call this
unnecessary noise pollution. It seems to be particularly bad on certain days - particularly
in this last week it was noticeable (week of Jan 5-11). Please take this into consideration
for when, where, and why you are flying them. With thanks, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3349
MOUNT VERNON, WA 982737169

I want to add to my previous comments the following update: I referred to the potential
adverse impact that expanding operations at NASWI might have on the region's
economy, in particular the important recreational activities enjoyed by residents and
visitors. After I submitted my comment yesterday, I learned that an Economic Analysis of
Outdoor Recreation in Washington State had just been released. The report establishes
just how important outdoor recreation is and why preserving our natural areas is so
critical to the local and state economy. Whether it's increased traffic congestion resulting
from the growing population associated with NASWI or ever more airplanes circling our
precious islands and waterways, expanding base operations will have a deleterious
impact on tourism and recreation. The EIS must consider the findings of the report
commissioned by our state legislature, which can be found at
http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/ORTF/EconomicAnalysisOutdoorRec.pdf. Thank you.
(b)(6)
3350

Thank you for your recent visit to Lopez Island. The quality of the presentation materials
and the open and respectful manner in which the Navy's representatives interacted with
Lopez residents was a valuable step in creating constructive dialogue. I have always
respected the US military and this process strengthened my favorable opinions. The
presentation materials explained why my partner and I hear as much Growler noise as
we do. Our home is directly under the FAA designated flight path over the south end of
the island. For the most part, we can tolerate the noise barring late night flights and times
when the house shakes or phone conversations have to be cut short. In the past couple
of weeks, the frequency and continuous daily noise have made us feel as if we are in the
middle of a war zone. If this pace of testing becomes the new normal, I would vote firmly
against any uptick in the number of test flights operated from Whidbey Island. Due to
economics it does not make any sense to relocate the testing facility to another part of
the country or the world. If we all do our part to support the Navy and the Navy does its
part to respect its neighbor stakeholders (including the non-human stakeholders) we can
probably make this work. Thanks for listening to us and doing so much to educate us
about the boundary conditions under which you are already operating. I look forward to
receiving your ongoing communications. Regards, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3351
, WA
To Whom it May Concern, I make my home on the Olympic Peninsula, and have major
concerns regarding this EIS. I would appreciate it if all the following issues could be
addressed: The addition of 36 Growler aircraft presents several serious issues to the
residents, visitors and to the pristine environment of the Olympic Peninsula, specifically in
regards to noise and chemical pollution, as well as electromagnetic pollution. My
understanding is that all of these impacts must be thoroughly presented and analyzed at
one time, in one document, for any kind of environmental statement to be valid. On a
personal note, I believe that for the Navy to earn the respect and support of the local
citizens as well as the American public, leadership of this federal agency needs to
conduct itself in an honorable way. This means with full transparency and respect for
federal laws. In this way, the Navy leadership honors our democracy and gains out trust,
respect, and cooperation. We are all very aware that Navy leadership is receiving money
(our taxpayer dollars) to defend, and to honor, our democratic process. NEPA and CEQ
require specifically that the Navy "process" be open and transparent...which means a full
disclosure of all activities related to the one presented here that is now being evaluated
by the public. Therefore, according to NEPA regulations, this project of the addition of
Growlers cannot be accepted as is. It is incomplete. NEPA and CEQ state that a proposal
cannot be divorced from any actions which will be a functional part of this particular
action, including all future actions as well. The EIS needs to fully disclose what these
Growlers will, in actuality, bring to the Olympic Peninsula in regards to all impacts from
any noise and chemical pollution, as well as impact on the environment and people from
the emitters and from Growler jamming activity According to Navy (and Boeing)
advertisements, jamming capabilities are the central purpose of the Growler technology.
Representatives from the Navy at the Forks public meeting indicated that jamming
activities of the Growler will be a part of future phases of this project. Navy documents
agree with this. So therefore , all issues and impacts regarding the effect of this jamming
onto the environment and onto (and into) the people need to be fully disclosed and fully
analyzed in this document at this time, using the latest and best science available. I
would like to trust that the Navy will do this. And, this is actually required, according to
federal law (NEPA and CEQ regulations.) Again, to separate out each function of land
sea and air activity, when in actuality they are closely integrated, is, according to federal
law, illegal. Please have Navy leadership abide by our federal laws and correct this
oversight in their approach to the public regarding this project. Also, NEPA requires that
ALL viable alternatives to the proposal be fully researched and presented. This has not
been done. Given that the plan to conduct warfare over the Olympic Peninsula is fraught
with some very serious issues ( major environmental impacts over a National Park,
possibly serious or unknown health hazards to the public using or living on those lands,,
as well as serious economic impacts on all of the communities of the peninsula to name a
few) it is in the best interest of the Navy to provide genuine and well-researched
alternatives to their choice of training terrain. Navy personnel have stated in recorded
public presentations that there are indeed other suitable lands available, however the
Navy leadership chose the Olympic Peninsula because it seemed to be the most
"efficient" way to get the training needs met. With such close proximity to the Whidbey
base, it saves the Navy gas money and keeps pilots closer to home. This of course
makes perfect sense on one level, but, since the environmental, public health and
socioeconomic impacts of this decision have not been adequately researched or

documented, (and still need to be, according to federal law ) the Olympic Peninsula is
looking like it could actuality be a very poor choice to propose such activity. And carry an
extremely high cost. Lawsuits and widespread local and National public disapproval are
two reasons that come to my mind. I do not appreciate my taxes being used for for such
expensive lawsuits, or for such activities that disrespect US citizens health and safety or
disrespect and defile the environment. Or for actions that destroy our National Parks. All
of the costs of the Navy's decision need to be fully exposed and evaluated: the costs to
the communities, the cost to the Olympic National Park, to our health and to the health of
the millions of visitors that come here every year to vacation, the cost to the environment,
to endangered and sensitive species, and the cost to future generations, as the park will
be desecrated and degraded, quite possibly forever, by this proposed activity. Every
aspect of the potential damages that could be incurred because of this Growler
expansion needs to be fully addressed and analyzed. It is the right of the American public
to have at their access all of this information. Our taxes are paying for all of this.
Therefore, all of the issues that were raised in the 3,000 comments concerning the EW
training range ( the Pacific NW Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment)
over the Olympic National Park need to be considered and answered for this project as
well, since they are related to these Growlers coming in. Added to these we need to
include all possible and probable impacts from the Growler noise ( which was never
addressed in that EA) I feel that independent studies need to be conducted ( the recent
successful lawsuit by citizens of Ebeys reserve proved that the Navy's science did not
accurately measure the level of noise that the citizens were subjected to. Needless to say
this was very disconcerting, given that people's (and children's!) hearing was being
damaged. Sadly, from reading about this, I learned that the Navy's "science " is not
something that can be trusted. (and to now expect citizens to trust any of the Navy's
scientific findings after this was exposed is not reasonable.) I will respect the Navy's
science when it reflects the truth, and Navy leadership needs to understand that respect
is earned. The Navy blatantly disregarded the health and well being of US citizens on
Whidbey Island, and it is time that they prove that they will not conduct themselves in a
similar manner in this issue. This Growler expansion proposal is an opportunity for the
Navy to regain the majority of the U.S. citizens respect and trust, by changing behavior
and adapting in an honorable manner to information that is coming in from these very
citizens. To do this, I feel that the added Growlers project needs to include a complete
and rigorous analysis of the noise increase for the communities that will be affected. (The
actual noise, not averaged from a computer) I personally know when a Growler jet flies
over, it has a different sound..deeper, louder, and it is much more jarring to my nervous
system. I moved here for the serenity and quiet, and my nervous system will not be able
to tolerate well an increase in these types of jets flying over constantly. For me, it is not
the sound of freedom at all. Independent science has also proven that the noise effected
human and animal health in other ways besides hearing. The EIS will also have to
include independent noise studies on the spotted owl as well since emitters are located in
their habitat. ( Owls are extremely sensitive to noise..it disrupts their nesting behavior) A
current scientific study needs to prove that the growler noise would not affect this very
endangered species. WE need independent studies of the noise and electromagnetic
radiations effect on migrating birds, on bees, butterflies, (who use electromagnetic fields
for navigation.) Please note that amphibians are considered a sensitive species, and the
Navy needs to use and respect current science on the effects of electromagnetic pollution
3351
on amphibians, which are a vital part of the rain forests for It has been shown that EMFs
have caused deformities in amphibians. ( see the Balmori experiment on this) And,
needless to say, If the Growlers do come to the Olympic Peninsula there has to be some
kind of outside monitoring and oversight of noise measurements to insure that the there
are no violations that would possibly stress out an endangered species like the spotted
owl or interfere with migrating birds nesting sites etc. A current and extensive US fish and
wildlife study addressing all of the issues raised will also be necessary to replace the one
the Navy cited in their EA which was very outdated and thus irrelevant. It is clear that it
will be in the best interest for all concerned to focus on other viable solutions to the issue
of training areas for this electronic warfare. It has been disclosed that there are millions of
acres of nearby military lands that are more appropriate for these practices. According to
federal law, they need to be used, rather than using public lands. Just saying that these
lands are "not really available because of scheduling conflicts" is not enough of a
"reason" to dismiss these lands.The Navy can work their scheduling conflicts out with the
Army and Air Force if need be. (If this is in reality an issue.) I have confidence they can
do this if it is. There are also thousands of acres of nearby Navy lands that are presently
being used for this type of war weaponry training, so they are indeed available. It is
obvious to me and to many citizens that there is certainly a way to get training needs met
and to protect the Olympic Peninsula and its communities from the assault of war
weaponry. I do not believe that US citizens genuinely want to be at war with the Navy
over this. I am sure we can come up with some viable solutions that will meet the needs
of all of us. NEPA was created to protect the environment and US citizens. I am trusting
that since we still have a democracy in this country, NEPA will continue work towards that
purpose. One citizen suggested at the Forks meeting to conduct the warfare practice out
over the ocean. The navy personnel said it was a very interesting idea, but it hadn't been
proposed because they just "hadn't thought of that". This idea needs to be fully
researched as one of the alternative solutions...emitters could be placed on various boats
etc. This would also take care of the very serious noise issue that the added Growlers is
causing for the local communities. It would also protect for future generations a very
unique, rare, intact pristine ecosystem of unparallelled beauty, from the harmful effects of
electromagnetic radiation. I am aware that the Navy leadership decided all of this awhile
ago, looking at a map. It is also clear to me that after reading about what has happened
on Whidbey island, the Navy has to become more flexible and actually work with the
communities like they continually promise to do. That means truly listening and taking in
information, and....most importantly adjusting plans accordingly. I appreciate your taking
into consideration my concerns, as well as any ideas and suggestions I have put forth.
Sincerely, (b)(6)
3351
(b)(6)
3352

The segmented fragmentary approach taken by the NAVY in this multipart EIS provides a
head on challenge to the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that for
the past 50 years has required disclosure of the entire process, and required public
involvement in the processes that federal agencies use to make decisions that are likely
to affect the environment. Not just the trees and the streams and the birds and bugs,
NEPA applies to the impacts of actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment" 40 C.F.R. 1508.14 (1997). 1. On the Fragmentation and segmentation
temporal disconnect of the environmental review what is in fact a single larger project
NEPA teaches, and the courts agree, that all of a projects components that are actions
that are linked economically and by other considerations to the degree that one cannot
exist without the other must be considered in a single EIS. See Fritiofson v. Alexander
772 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1985 ) in which the court makes a distinction between the
requirement to analyze cumulative actions and the requirement for an analysis of
cumulative impacts. Specifically, with respect to cumulative actions, the court noted that
CEQ scoping regulations require connected, cumulative, and similar actions to be
considered together in the same EIS--where proposals up for decision are functionally or
economically related, those proposals must be considered in one EIS. "If proceeding with
one project will, because of functional or economic dependence, foreclose options or
irretrievably commit resources to future projects, the environmental consequences of the
projects should be evaluated together. This means that even if one or more of the
actions that are components of a larger project might be considered insignificant in the
absence of the others, they must be considered together in scoping. In the maps
provided to the public, many of the training flights from NAS WI simply go off the map
and disappear, but the planes and their impacts do not simply disappear. And in the EA
for the electronic warfare training on USFS lands, the impacts of these planes are not
discussed, but the impacts of the truck mounted EM transmitter stations, are discussed.
But these truck mounted EM transmitters have no purpose, absent the FA-18 Growler
planes from NAS WI. Therefore, the impacts of both the training missions and their
ground-based components, conspicuously absent from the scoping documents must be
addressed in the overall EIS, and the noise impacts and other impacts from the training
flights over or in close proximity to National Park lands and designated Wilderness Areas
must be addressed in the EIS as well. While NEPA is addressed primarily to "physical
effects," the term "human environment" goes beyond impacts on earth, air and water.
The CEQ regulations provide a very broad definition of the term "human environment,"
which encompasses impacts on the quality of urban life. The word "affecting" in the key
phrase "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" is defined by the
CEQ to mean "will or may have an effect on." "Effects" not only include direct impacts of
an action, but also indirect (or secondary) impacts -- those which are later in time or
farther removed in distance from the proposal, but which nevertheless are reasonably
attributable to it and reasonably foreseeable in time." See Metropolitan Edison Co. v.
People Against Nuclear Energy (Metropolitan Edison), 460 U.S. 766, 772-73 (l983), 40
C.F.R. 1508.14 (1997)., Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied,
412 U.S. 908 (1973)., 40 C.F.R. 1508.3 (1996). Sierra Club v. Marsh (Sierra Club I),
769 F.2d 868 (1st Cir. 1985), and 40 C.F.R. 1508.8 2. On the disconnect between the
computer model used to predict noise impacts to date and technical definition of noise
impacts and the requirements of NEPA The NAVY admits that the noise contour of the
Growlers will be different from the Prowlers they replace and that it will in fact shake
windows and rattle stuff inside peoples' houses - and irritate them - but that a Growler is
not actually "louder" than a Prowler in a very narrowly defined technical sense, based on
a computer model that has been found to be contradictory to human experience of noise
in other bases were the Growler's FA-18 airframes have been deployed, and yet states
that there will be no significant impact as a result of the change, based on predictions
from DoD NOISEMAP and day night averaged noise levels (DBL). That disconnect
between public's experience and computer model's prediction indicates that the NAVY's
noise impact analysis provided in Section 3.1.1 of the earlier EIS segment is NOT what
NEPA calls for. Because the noise contour of the Growlers on takeoff and landing is
admittedly different from the Prowlers than the planes it replaces - by as much as 11db
louder @ 50 Hz under some circumstances - still the model claims that the new planes
are not "louder" in a very narrowly defined technical sense, and then on the basis of a
computer model (that is NOT mapping well to the human experience anywhere, not here,
not in Key West, not in Virginia Beach) they have determined no significant impact of the
change, but that analysis is NOT what NEPA calls for, and therefore this issue is not yet
closed and must still be discussed in the EIS. The NAVY states: "Noise is generally
described as unwanted sound. A sound is regarded as noise when it interferes with
normal activities such as sleep or conversation, or when it is subjectively judged to be
annoying. " The NAVY Table 7 of SPL in Wyle (2012) shows a reduction, not an 11 db
increase resulting from shift from Prowler to Growler, and shows offshore SPL of 133 db
for Prowler on departure. Add 11 db to 133 db for 144 db. +6 db = DOUBLES the energy
of the noise and +11 db nearly doubles noise energy twice. Noise energy maps very
closely to real-time human physiological response, i.e. adrenal and neuromotor
responses to noise, shaking, vibration, etc. and when an average-based model derived
from isolated measurements (DNL) deviates substantially from human response, and
existing buildings shake and windows rattle, it is the model rather than the humans or
their structures and dwellings that need to be adjusted until the models predictions are in
closer agreement with perceptions, because impacts are the result of subjective human
experiences, and reflect actual physiological factors, not models. When the hypothesis
does not match the facts, it is the hypothesis, as expressed by the model, that should
yield. This EIS should therefore address noise in a way that demonstrably maps to
human experience and address the economic impacts resulting from nuisance noise due
to training exercises, engine maintenance runups and low elevation overflights in all the
areas where training missions from NAS WI will be flown, including the EW training
missions over lands manged by National Park and USFS. In Dept of Transportation v.
Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004), the Supreme Court noted that NEPA requires a
reasonably close causal relationship between the environmental effect and the alleged
cause, and analogized the determination of whether an environmental effect is caused
by an agency action to the doctrine of proximate cause in tort law. Id. at 767; see also
City of Shoreacres v. Waterworth, 420 F.3d 440, 452 (5th Cir. 2005); League for Coastal
Protection v. Norton, 2005 WL 2176910 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2005) (Department of Interior
order to undertake full NEPA analysis after failure to consider long-term environmental
impacts of new oil and gas developments in its approval of oil and gas leases). "The
determination of whether an impact would "significantly" affect the environment entails an
analysis of context and intensity. "Context" refers to the setting, such as national, regional
3352
or local. "Intensity" refers to the severity of impact, and includes such factors as public
health, effects on unique characteristics or values (such as endangered species, historic
resources or wetlands), the degree the effects are likely to be scientifically controversial,
the extent to which potential impacts are uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks,
the degree to which the action would establish precedent, and whether the proposal
threatens to violate legal requirements enacted to protect the environment." This clearly
indicates that context in which the impacts take place refers to the real world where
people live and experience ringing ears and shaking windows, not the existing computer
model. The only thing controversial about the noise issue is the NAVYs refusal to
address the noise through mitigation, rather than through denial or obfuscation via the
fragmentation of the discussion into isolated components that serve only to prevent
complete disclosure of intention or understanding. For these and other reasons, the EIS
must include disclosure and discussion of all the connected actions, and all of their
impacts
3352
(b)(6)
3353
Eugene , MO 65032
Keep your noisy Growlers with your electronic war games out of our National Forests and
National Parks. There is no way that the impact to the environment can be measured,
and everybody knows it. The Air Force admitted as much in their executive summary of
their Environmental Assessment of similar plans for dumping aluminum used for foiling
heat seeking missile exercises in SD, ND, WY, and MT. Here is that Executive Summary:
"ES.5.2 MITIGATION MANAGEMENTOVER TIME Throughout the planning process to
develop the proposed PRTC, it has become apparent that there may be various
uncertainties concerning the significance and scope of environmental impacts until the
operations can be experienced over time. In response, and within certain parameters, the
Air Force may develop an adaptive management program as part of its overarching
mitigation and monitoring program1. In doing so, the Air Force would follow the
Presidents Council on Environmental Quality mitigation and monitoring guidance2, and
other legal and generally accepted practices. New knowledge and information gained
through experience can be incorporated into management options and recommendations
to appropriate decision makers. Many of the mitigation measures listed in Section ES.5.1
incorporate continuing communication, consultation, and feedback to adapt PRTC
operations to the needs of the public, agencies, and tribes as well as training aircrews.
This EIS identifies and describes the affected environment and assesses the potential
environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed PRTC. The
analysis identifies specific mitigation measures to prevent or minimize environmental
impacts, if required. Air Force Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) regulations
require the action proponent to prepare a mitigation plan and forward it to Headquarters
(HQ), Air Force for review within 90 days of the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD).
Among other things, the mitigation plan must specifically identify each mitigation
measure, how the measures will be executed, and who will fund and implement the
mitigations."
(b)(6)
3354
British Columbia, Canada

victoria, WA V8S4R7
We're finding these loud roaring noises to be very disruptive - interfering with our sense
of well being and calm. They happen both after dark and in the mornings. Since we live in
an earthquake zone, these grumblings could also be the beginning of an earthquake and
that is most unsettling. We are also concerned about the impact on birds and marine
mammals in our city and off our coasts. We hope these flights and their subsequent noise
disruption will come to an end shortly. With thanks.
(b)(6)
3355

I went to your December 4 scoping meeting in Pt Townsend. I have questions: One billion
birds fly up and down the Pacific Coast flyway every year. The effects of loud noise and
electromagnetic radiation on their ability to find resting places and to navigate has not
been analyzed by the Navy, nor has it consulted other agencies for analyses. Do you
intend to study this and inform the public of results of these studies. If not, why not? What
happened to the EIS that was prepared to Draft Status in 1988 that covered ALL
operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island? Why was it shelved after the Draft was
completed? Why have all the activities now been broken into separate processes? Why
are all the newly-expanded ship-based activities, including underwater weapons training,
that will take place off Indian Island, in various parts of Puget Sound, in the Strait of Juan
de Fuca, and in the Olympic Marine Sanctuary, not included in the Navy's EIS? Why are
you not including the proposed electromagnetic warfare range on the Olympic Peninsula
Coast in this EIS, since those activities are directly related to these new Growlers you are
seeking to base at NASWI? No public notices were published in any media that directly
serve the northern and western Olympic Peninsula. In the resultant absence of public
comment, the Navy issues its EA in Sept 2014 and issued a "finding of no significant
Impact". We see this issue as a while - the Growlers and their electronic weapons, the
truck-based emitters, the electronic radiation, the noise, the incredible air pollution. But
only the impacts from truck wheels on forest Service lands were included in the EA. At
scoping meetings, the public is only allowed to comment on the jets at Whidbey Island,
and the the Training Range on the Olympic Peninsula. How does the Navy justify that
when its ground-based operations can't, according to a 1988 Master Agreement, legally
be separated from its aircraft operations? Although the Navy pilots are reportedly not
allowed to "go supersonic" over land, how do you explain the fact that sonic booms loud
enough to shake houses and upset residents as well as domestic and wild animals are
being experienced in some communities, particularly on the western shore of the Olympic
Peninsula? Growler jets carry a variety of extremely powerful electronic weapons such as
lasers, high-powered microwave or EMP or anti-radiation energy in concentrated.
directed beams designed, according to a Navy source document"...to attack personnel,
facilities, or equipment with the intent of degrading, neutralizeing, or destroying enemy
combat capability..." Also, the Navy's EA says that the training in the Olympic MOA will
provide full combat readiness in electronic attack. What types of electronic attack will be
practiced by these Growler jets, and what are the potential impacts, intended or
otherwise, on the local population and the environment? We were assured at the Dec 4
scoping meeting that there was virtually nothing dangerous on a Growler jet. But, you
have been less than candid with us, the public, thus far, and have done a chop-logic,
piecemeal performance of informing us, feeling too free to change your mind, your plans,
etc. And, given the obvious fact that your Growler jets are so bottom-heavy that they
appear a lot more likely to crash than most aircraft, are you planning to assess the ill
effects of a Growler crash on the Olympic National Forest or on Whidbey? The Navy
already has 4 locations within easy of reach of Whidbey Island in which to practice
electronic warfare training, and it regularly conducts such training there. These include
bases at Fallon, Mountain Home, the Oregon Boardman Range, and Yakima. These
comprise more than half a million acres and 20 thousand miles of airspace for electronic
warfare training. why, if no REQUIRED proof has been given by you that this training
can't be accomplished elsewhere, do you "need" this pristine, hitherto unspoiled, hitherto
quiet area, which includes a World Heritage Site and the most outstanding example of
temperate rainforest in the United States? In July 2014, the NPS reported that in 2013
some 3.085,340 visitors to Olympic National Park spent $245,894,100 in communities
near the park, which supported 2,993 local jobs. If you have not studied the economic
effect of these flights and awareness of the radiation involved will have on tourism, and
related industries which included real estate, why not? have you analyzed the effects on
the "wilderness soundscape" in Olympic Natl Park? If not, why not? Have you met with
County Commissioners or city officials or community leaders to discuss economic
impacts on their communities? do you plan to do this? If not, why not? More than 1,000
scientific and government reports document non-thermal impacts of even the lowest-level
radiation used by the Navy as harmful. Why did your representatives at the scoping
meeting Dec 4 deny this entirely? Some people at meetings have described booms and
broken windows. I heard your representative's response when someone asked it at your
Dec 4 scoping, "the pilot must have broken the rules. Call our hotline." One resident did.
It was a recorded message, and much later she got a postcard from you folks thanking
her for her interest in the Navy. Do you have a credibility problem?? Growler jets make
noise far above human pain threshold, that kind of low booming like a car going past with
rock music on the radio and the base turned way up. I've met the spouse of a Whidbey
resident who said his wife was ALWAYS severely depressed from the constant noise of
the Growler jets. Other effects from loud noise include hearing loss, heart disease,
immune system dysfunction and more, not just in humans but in wildlife as well. Is there
no pain or loss or likely pain or loss on the part of others including wildlife that will deter
you from this horrible, ridiculously unnecessary plan? I get the impression that the military
expands (into almost every Congressional district in the US at this point) because it finds
that it can, and that it likes to have bigger budgets to deal with. Yes, we have enemies in
this world, but in every sense of the word, I think that what is most missing and most
necessary in the US military today, is intelligence.
3355
(b)(6)
3356
Sequim, WA 98382
I do not support expansion of the growler flights over any area of the Olympic Peninsula populated, forest or parkland. We believe the increase of noise and potential hazardous
radiation will reduce our quality of life and reduce our housing prices for potential buyers
wanting a peaceful environment. Please do not approve this measure. Thank you.
(b)(6)
3357
January 9, 2015 EA-18G EIS Project manager (Code EV21/SS) Naval Facilities
Engineering Command Atlantic (NAVFAC) 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk VA 23508
RE: U.S. Navy Environmental Impact Statement for the EA-16G Growler Airfield
Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island Scoping Comments To Whom It
May Concern: This letter is an addendum to the letter submitted on January 2, 2014
regarding the EA-18G EIS, which has now been revised to include the possible increase
of up to 36 additional aircraft. In addition to our comments of January 2, our concerns
about the potential for a significant increase in aircraft are primarily related to the
increased frequency of operations. Our experience with the Growlers, vs the Prowlers, is
that the aircraft is much louder, has more reverberation, and that flights within the
patterns have varied as a result of training activities and numbers of aircraft in a flying
rotation at one time. Overall, we request that there be no increase in the number of
flights/hours of flight allowed under the current EA, and that flight operations be mitigated
to reduce their impact on our residents and community. In terms of mitigation, we include
the following additional considerations: o Training flights currently do not occur on
weekends. We suggest that no flights occur Friday-Sunday, which provides the
opportunity for residents and our large tourist contingence to enjoy the outdoors for 3
days each week, with certainty. o Flight patterns be reviewed for options to varying the
pattern, providing relief to some residents when flights occur on contiguous days, for
example, alternating between patterns on contiguous days. o Schedules should also be
reviewed for day and night flights on a more tolerable schedule, for example, starting at
beginning of dark for night flights and flight operations terminate at midnight. o That the
number of aircraft in the flight pattern be limited to a number that can maintain the normal
pattern. We have observed that too many jets in the air at one time, particularly with less
experienced pilots, causes the pattern to push out over areas that are normally not
flown over. o We have learned that leadership at the squadron, Wing and base command
level changes about every two years. It would be helpful to develop written training
information that is passed down with changes of command, to minimize changes that we
have seen occur as a result of new people who are unfamiliar with the conditions in this
community. o Coupeville is located in the heart of Ebeys Reserve. The Reserve was
created to preserve the cultural landscape of farming that has existed since the first
settlers arrived on Whidbey Island. Private landowners have sold the development rights
to their land, and are restricted to its use for farming. Farming has changed over the
years, and we are seeing more who are farming on a small scale, intense with labor,
rather than farmers riding in tractors and on equipment. The noise and reverberation of
the Growlers has made outdoor work very difficult on flight days. Consideration to
outdoor workers, in the flight pattern and schedule, is critical to maintaining this important
part of our economy and heritage. o Finally, we strongly reiterate our January comment
that modifications to the aircraft be developed to reduce noise/reverberation. Thank you
for giving us the opportunity to provide additional input on the potential for increased
activity of the Growlers at NAS Whidbey Island and OLF. Sincerely, Nancy Conard Mayor
Dianne Binder, Councilmember Bob Clay, Councilmember Jackie Henderson,
Councilmember Molly Hughes, Councilmember Patricia Powell, Councilmember
(b)(6)
3358
Victoria, WA 98221
I am Canadian. I heard your consultation was open to Canadians but the website does
not allow me to acurately refelct my address. I live in Oak Bay, which is across the water
from Whidby Island. The sound of the planes is extremely distracting and annoying and
takes awa from the enjoyment of my personal property. It have to turn up my stereo or
television when the growlers are flying. I liken it to living on a busy traffic thoroughfare,
except that the prices I paid are not reflective of that. Please do not increase growler
traffic, if anything, I ask that it be eliminated. thank you (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3359

To Whom it may concern, I am a concerned citizen and resident of the Olympic
Peninsula where the Navy has plans to expand their jet fleet and EWR. Before this issue
became public, I had already noticed in the last year or so that there was more jet noise
over my house west of Port Angeles. I spend a lot of time outdoors, and this increase in
noise level has definitely affected my quality of life. The jet noise has even frightened my
dog when it is really loud, if a domestic animal is affected, how much more is this noise
then going to affect our wildlife on the peninsula? I have read the comments submitted by
Ronald N. Richards for Protect the Peninsula's Future. I agree with those comments and
I hereby adopt them as my own. They are copied below. Your proposed EIS should be
expanded as suggested therein. Sincerely, Lisa Unger 86 Raleigh Rd Port Angeles, WA
98363 360-928-3729 Re: Scoping Comments on the Fall 2014 U.S. Navy EIS for the
EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island Protect
the Peninsula's Future (PPF) is a non-profit, public benefit corporation registered in
Washington State since 1973. I am on the Board of Directors of PPF, and I have been
designated as its EWR Lead. Many of our members live, work, recreate, hike, fish, or
impacts of which have not been sufficiently evaluated in any environmental document.
PPF has grave concerns that the scope of the EIS as described in the Fall 2014 A Guide
to the Scoping Meeting (for the subject EIS) is much too limited to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That act requires all federal agencies to
prepare an EIS whenever they undertake any significant action, and further stipulates
that all activities that are functionally related must be included. The geographic area
proposed to be covered by the EIS is limited to the Whidbey Island area generally, and to
landings, takeoffs, and touch and go training at Ault and OLF fields. In this regard, a
diagram on the left side of the Growler Operations page of the Scoping Meeting Guide
is most telling. That diagram includes three flight paths that extend to the southwest of
the area shown as follows: See original comment for map Those flight paths, we are
sure, lead to the Navys proposed Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range (EWR).
The impacts of the Gowlers on those flight paths do not end at the boundaries of the
Navys diagram. The impacts extend as far as the Growlers fly. Under NEPA those
impacts must be evaluated in the EIS both in the area between Whidbey Island and the
proposed EWR, and in the area of the proposed EWR. Because that was not done in the
Navys Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed EWR, it should be done now.
This is also necessary under the 1988 Master Agreement between the Department of
Defense and the US Department of Agriculture. That Master Agreement requires the
Forest Service to study both the impacts of the proposed land-based training activities
and the impacts of the proposed use of airspace if directly associated with the land
based training. We are mindful that the Navys EA for the EWR states at Page 2-8: All
of the EW training activities and locations that would be associated with the
implementation of the Pacific Northwest EW Range were analyzed in the NWTRC
EIS/OEIS. The NWTRC EIS/OEIS has an October 2010 Record of Decision that
approved an alternative that included EW training activities associated with the

copy is shown below. See original comment for map. It is commendable that the Navy
has gone to such extents to study the impacts of the 36 new Growlers at OLF. However,
the same detailed portrayal of flight paths of Growlers going to and returning from, and
using, the proposed EWR, is essential for a proper evaluation of the impacts in those
locations. Because there are 15mobile emitter sites in the proposed EWR, and one fixed
emitter site, there are essentially 16 OLFs in the proposed EWR. A detailed portrayal of
flight paths for each of the 16 proposed emitter sites is needed. The same is true of every
possible flight path to and from the proposed EWR. With neither the NWTRC EIS nor the
3359
NWTT EIS having evaluated Electronic Combat in the Olympic MOAs, or aircraft flights in
the area between Whidbey Island and those MOAs, the impacts of the 82 or so Growlers
currently at NASWI, as well as the proposed 36 new Growlers, must now be evaluated in
the proposed EIS. Prior to preparing an EIS as suggested above, the Navy should
consider that the Master Agreement referred to above authorized military use of National
Forest lands only if that use is compatible with other uses and in conformity with
applicable forest plans, provided the Department of Defense determines and
substantiates that lands under its administration are unsuitable or unavailable. NASWI is
already conducting electronic warfare training at several Department of Defense bases in
the Northwest that include restricted airspace and nearly half a million acres of land. Only
3359
(b)(6)
Future, Inc.
3359
(b)(6)
3360
Victoria, British Columbia, WA V8N5C6

There must be a DECREASE in the noise from these growlers which have been
annoying us for years. My windows rattle and the deep rumble at all hours is deeply
disturbing.
(b)(6)
3361

I have lived in Port Townsend for 24 years and cherish the unspoiled natural beauty
throughout the Olympic Peninsula. It has always been my expectation that nothing would
ever change this wonderful way of life. However this tranquility is being challenged ever
since the increasing fly-over noises of the EA-18G Growler jets started last year. I am
becoming increasingly sensitive to the different noise levels, how often, when and at what
times these fly-overs happen. Since I am regularly driving through Whidbey Island, I am
very familiar with the Navy's sign "The Sound of Freedom". Nowadays, whenever I hear
the fly-over noise of the Growler jets, I am thinking "This is not the Sound of Freedom,
THIS IS THE SOUND OF PARADISE LOST!" THE EIS SHOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE
OF LOSS OF CONTROL AND HOW THE LOW FREQUENCY SOUNDS IMPACT
HUMANS. ALSO, SINCE OUR ECONOMY IS LARGELY DEPENDENT ON TOURISM
(WHICH IS AT ITS PEAK DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS WHEN THE WEATHER IS
CLEAR AND WON'T MUFFLE THE GROWLER JETS FLY-OVER SOUNDS), THE EIS
SHOULD ALSO ADDRESS THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS THROUGHOUT JEFFERSON,
CLALLAM, SAN JUAN, WHATCOM, SKAGIT AND ISLAND COUNTIES. I oppose the
planned expansion to add 36 more jets to the current fleet of 82 EA-18G Growler jets
stationed at the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3362
,
My name is (b)(6)
and I live on the North Olympic Peninsula. My family moved
here recently, drawn by the quietness that is here and the beauty of the Olympic National
Park. As an avid hiker and backpacker and an enthusiastic camper, it seemed an ideal
place to spend the next several decades of my life. I am very concerned to learn about
the Navys plans to transform the western side of the Peninsula into an Electronic
Warfare Range, as that particular area is my familys favorite place to spend our free
time. In my understanding, the National Environmental Policy Act stipulates that all
Federal agencies, when planning a project, investigate and disclose all direct, indirect
and cumulative impacts of a project on the environment and citizens. The full scope of
the proposed project, including all forseeable future effects, must be analyzed in depth. I
have learned tha it is a violation of Federal Law to divide the project into separate parts,
as if they were unrelated projects. The impacts of the proposed action must be evaluated
as a whole, because often the cumulative impacts are experienced more acutely than the
sum of individual parts. Therefore, I request that the Navy prepare a thorough in-depth
and comprehensive Environmental Statement that includes all aspects of the Navys
expansion of their Electronic Warfare Training at NAS Whidbey Island, including ground,
air and sea-based activities. These activities are functionally related, so must be included
in one comprehensive EIS. A piece-meal approach at analysis of the impacts is not in
alignment with NEPA requirements. For example, because the additional 36 Growlers will
be used to train pilots in Electronic Warfare techniques, it is very misleading to separate
their impacts from the Electronic Warfare Range and the land-based emitters that they
will be interacting with. Also, the Master Agreement (1988) between the Dept of Defense
and the Dept of Agriculture requires the Forest Service to study the impacts of the
directly associated with the land-based activity. Clearly this is the case here. But no
assessment of the impacts was done, so this ommission is also a violation of the Master
Agreement between these two Federal agencies. Because a proper EIS was not
completed for the proposed Electronic Warfare Range on the Olympic Peninsula, there
are many impacts that have been completely overlooked. A comprehensive EIS that
addresses all the impacts anticipated from the Navys plan to expand their Electronic
Warfare training program should include: An in-depth analysis of the negative impacts to
human health from the electronic radiation from the mobile emitters as well as from the
jets. This must include all possible future training needs including jamming, because
disabling and disrupting signals is clearly an integral part of any electronic warfare
training program. All frequencies that will be used in this testing and training need to be
thoroughly analyzed and disclosed, and their effects upon flora and fauna (as well as
humans) needs to be thoroughly studied. The investigation should disclose the following:
Exactly at what locations will these practices be conducted? Has a study been conducted
to ascertain the damage to all the flora and fauna at these locations? Do these
electromagnetic rays scatter when they hit the earth and if so, how much? What will be
the power and the length of these electromagnetic rays emanating from the jets? What
kinds of radiation will be used? What part of the electromagnetic spectrum will be used?
What frequencies and amplitude and intensity will the pilots be practicing with? Exactly
how many times will pilots shoot during a training exercise? Exactly how many training
exercises will be conducted a day? Exactly how many days a year will these exercises
take place? What studies have been done that show that this kind of focused
electromagnetic radiation is safe for wildlife? What will be the cumulative effect on the
flora and fauna as these exercises are practiced day after day? What studies have been
done to quantify the damage done to animals and plants? What of the effects of this
radiation on bees, butterflies and and other insects,who use the earths electromagnetic
field for navigation purposes? Has a comprehensive study on its effects on insects been
conducted? Both insects and animals are critical parts of the ecosystem here. They must
not be discounted or dismissed if one is attempting to assess the impacts and
consequences of such an operation. This project is to take place in the Pacific Flyway.
The beams that are coming from both the fixed emitter and the mobile emitters will most
assuredly have a negative effect on the migrating birds, since they use the earths
magnetic field for navigation. What effects will the emitters radiation have on the
migrating birds? Has this been carefully and thoroughly studied? If so, where are these
documents? The Environmental Assessment that was completed in August 2014
regarding the EW Range based its claim that there would be no significant impact from
the project on one very small, outdated, inconclusive experiment. (Focke et.al. 2009) This
is clearly not the best available science, which NEPA mandates. There are literally
thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies revealing that this radiation is harmful to all
living systems. I understand the Navy has claimed that the emitters are no more
dangerous than a cell tower. Current research indicates that that may be quite
dangerous. Recent research indicates that the current levels of radiation from cell towers
permitted by the FCC are far too lenient to protect public health. There are many studies
indicating cancer, heart damage, headaches, fatigue, fertility problems, leukemia,
(especially in children), risk to pregant women,(embryos are particularly vulnerable to
harm from these electromagnetic waves), cell damage, fertility problems in young
females, DNA fragmentation. etc. Can the Navy document that the level of radiation
coming from the emitters is safe for humans and wildlife? Exactly where is the current
science that proves this? And what about the radiation that will be coming from the jets in
future training exercises, as they practice jamming? Has the effect on this kind of
radiation been studied? What studies document that it is safe? Children and pregnant
women appear particularly vulnerable to adverse health affects. The proposed fixed
emitter will be near a school and a retreat center in Pacific Beach. Current scientific
studies are suggesting that young women are vulnerable to damage to their fertility
because of radiation from wireless technologies. Will the Navy be held responsible for
diminished fertility in our children and successive generations because of the public was
unknowingly exposed to this radiation? Will there be financial compensation for this type
of damage? Is this what our tax dollars will be used for? What effects are anticipated to
these especially vulnerable populations? Is there scientific evidence proving that it will be
safe for these populations? I understand that the Growlers are much more apt to crash
than the Prowlers. What is the chance, given the intensity of the training program, and
the increased number of Growlers involved, that there will be a crash? When there is,
who will be responsible for the damage? How much toxic flammable fuel will be
discharged in the environment when this crash occurs? Given that summers are
becoming dryer and more vulnerable to forest fires with global climate change, and that
last year was the most expensive in history for the state of Washington for fighting forest
fires, this issue is of grave concern. Who will be responsible for putting the forest fires
out? Does the Navy plan on using the Forest Service to put out the fires, or will the local
fire departments be called when such a fire occurs? Who will pay for this service? Will the
3362
state of Washington wind up with the bill? Doesnt it make more sense to have this
practice on barren lands where a crash would not result in a forest fire that could have
astronomical costs? What will be the financial compensation if a large part of the forest is
destroyed by such a fire? Who will be financially responsible when homes are destroyed?
Who will be financially responsible when businesses are destroyed? Will the victims need
to sue the Navy? Who will pay for lawyer fees and court fees? Will our tax dollars be
used for these legal proceedings? Who will decide what the financial compensation will
be? Does the Navy decide, or will a court of law? Will there be recourse for the victims if
they feel they are not adequately compensated? What about loss of life if the plane
crashes on a home or a camper? How do you put a price tag on that? Will our tax dollars
be used for that compensation? Doesnt such issues make the potential cost of
establising a training ground here prohibitive? Given that many of the visitors to Olympic
National Park are drawn to the beauty and visual integrity of the landscape, what
compensation will be made to Olympic National Park if a large portion of its forests are
decimated due to fire, scarring the land for decades? Will an independent court of law
decide what the financial loss is in such a case, or will it be left up to the Navy to decide?
Will our tax dollars be paying for the Navys legal fees? Will our tax dollars be paying for
the financial compensation? Will our tax dollars be paying for Olympic National Parks
legal fees, if they choose to sue the Navy? And what about the lawsuits over the harmful
noise of the Growlers? Given that lawsuits over the noise of the Growlers has already
cost the Navy millions of dollars in Japan and the east coast with citizen groups, as well
as communities on Whidbey Island, these costs should be anticipated and included in a
cost/benefit analysis. The Navy will most likely discover that these lawsuits, which are
likely, far outweigh the the gas savings that the Navy claims is the reasong why they
chose the Olympic Peninsula. Why has these kinds of costs not been included in a
cost/benefit analysis? What about the fuel dumping that these Growlers periodically
perform? What is the fuel made of and exactly how toxic is it to humans? How toxic is it
to wildlife? How toxic is it to plants? How long will residues remain in the ecosystem?
How much will be dumped a year, and exactly where? Will this affect rivers and streams
and the ecology of the sound and the straight? How so? What effect will this have on
sensitive species, such as salmon, and their eggs and all the species who depend upon
clean water to survive? What effect will this have on the wild salmon recovery projects
that millions of dollars of taxpayer money is going towards to try to save the Pacific
Northwests iconic species? Because ecology teaches us that all these elements of the
ecosystem are intimately connected, we now know that introducing toxic chemicals into
this pristine environment will result in pervasive effects all throughout the system.
Therefore we know these toxic chemicals will end up somewhere (watershed? soil?
plant roots?) There is no such place as away . Therefore , the residue of these toxic
chemicals that will be periodically dumped must be analyzed thoroughly by scientists
who have a deep understanding of the unique rainforest ecology that is in the proposed
Range. What about the expense of lawsuits arising from citizens illnesses from
exposure to these toxic chemicals? Could campers, hikers, backpackers, fishermen, as
well as employees of the National Park, and the thousands of people who live in this area
and drink the water be exposed? Will campers and backpackers and fishermen need to
be given warnings about the water quality? Will they need special filters for their drinking
water? Will residents in the area need special treatment of their water if a fuel dump
contaminates the water supply? What about the damage to livestock from contaminated
water? If someone is poisoned by the toxic chemical residues, will the Navy need to
3362
compensate them? Will the individual need to take the Navy to court to get
compensation? Will our tax dollars be used for this compensation? And what about
Marine Mammals? How will this dumping of toxic fuel with the intensive training
expansion affect marine life here? What will be the effect of these toxic chemicals on the
millions of birds who nest and rear their young in the remote islands that Theodore
Roosevelt set aside as a sanctuary for birds? And what effect will the noise of the
Growlers have on the birds? Will it affect their breeding? if yes, how so? Will the Navy be
liable to lawsuits regarding their violation of the Marine Mammal Act as they were in
California? Will our taxpayer money be used for defending the Navys violations of
Federal laws designed to protect our environment and our wildlife? Exactly who will be
monitoring the Navy for compliance to Federal law? Since there is no agency that does
this, will this be left up to the public? If this is so, the public would have to hire someone
to do this monitoring. The citizens on Whidbey Island were forced to hire a professional
acoustics company to document that the Growlers were much noisier and the levels of
noise were very harmful to citizens. Although theyd been informing the Navy for years of
the very real harm they have experienced from the sound of the jets, the citizens were
routinely and repeatedly dismissed and ignored. Finally the citizens were forced to pay an
independent research company seven thousand dollars to do an independent study to
prove that their claims were valid. If the citizens need to go to this extent to hold the Navy
accountable, what of the claim by the Navy that they are good neighbors who will work
with communities if any problems come up. This appears not to be the case. How can
the public trust what the Navy says, if this is their history? The most recent case (2013) of
the Navy being successfully sued by public interest groups defending the Federal Marine
Mammal Protection Act comes to mind. Exactly how much did that case cost taxpayers?
How will Americans feel about the Navys claim to be wanting to save taxpayer dollars
when they are involved in numerous lawsuits and taxpayer dollars are used to defend the
Navy against public interest groups that are demanding that the Navy obey Federal Law?
The noise the Growlers will be making over the Olympic Peninsula needs to thoroughly
and honestly evaluated--both when the jets fly over the communities as they travel to and
from the EW Range and also as they practice in the airspace above the MOAs. These
measurements should not be averaged out or done from a simulated model or a
computer. Real sound measurements need to be made, so an accurate analysis can be
conducted. Sound studies that the Navy conducts must include the low frequency noise
that Growlers are known to produce. The Navys use of Sound averages over a 24 hour
period for their statistics are very misleading. Exactly what elevations will the jets be
flying at when they commute? How far above the land will they be when the doing their
exercises? For what length of time will each exercise last? What is the decibels of noise
a person on the ground will experience when the jets practice in their groups of three, as
the literature on this suggests they will be doing? What exact times will they be practicing,
noting that the Navy said they needed 24/7 accessibility to their Range? Will people be
advised in advance of the training times so they can schedule outdoor time for social
gatherings etc? What health effects will result from the sleep disturbance that this level of
sound creates for the thousands of people who live in this area? What about the harmful
effects on especially sensitive childrens ears and the effects on their behavior? Research
shows that children can be very distressed by military warjet noise, Behaviors reported
include terror, panic, screaming, freezing in place, palpitations, shaking dizziness,bed
wetting, sleep disturbances, nailbiting anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. Also their
learning capacity has been documented to be decreased due to airport noise. How will
3362
the Navy compensate for this damage? What is the effect of deafening sounds on
pregnant women? What studies have been done to ascertain that this intrusive sound is
not damaging to fetuses? Because of this, the EIS should specifically address the effect
of the Growler noise on children and pregnant women because NEPA requires that
populations such as children and pregant women recieve special investigation due to
their more sensitive physiology and particular vulnerablilty to this kind of stress. What
studies have been done regarding the startle response that the human nervous system
undergoes from these sounds? Given that many of our health problems are now related
to chronic stress, what is the cumulative effect of this fight or flight stress response on
human physiology? Have studies been done measuring the stress hormones secreted
from the stress of these loud Growlers? What about special populations, such as those
who suffer from Post traumatic stress response from combat or life trauma, who go to the
wilderness to experience the quiet and lack of stimulation? Has the physical and
psychological effects of the level of noise the Growlers make been studied with this
group? What about people with pacemakers or with heart conditions? What negative
health effects result from chronic sleep deprivation, which the residents who live in the
range may experience, as well as the million of visitors to the area? What about the
effects of these deafening sounds on wildlife? Have studies been done on the Elk
population here and how they react to the Growler sounds? If not, they need to be
completed. The last viable population of Spotted Owls in the world is located right in the
area where this Range is proposed. One of the emitters is located inside their critical
habitat. If we lose any of the breeding pairs--there are only about fifty--- from this
population, or their reproduction rate suffers, extinction is likely. How will this species be
affected by the Growlers exercises? Have any studies been done? If not, why not? If yes,
where are they and who did them? What about the sound on the behavior of the
endangered Spotted Owl, who is known to be very sensitive to man-made noises? How
will it affect thier survival chances? How will it damage their extremely sensitive ears,
which is what they depend upon for locating their prey? They, along with the Marbled
Murrulet, are on the verge of going extinct. Will this additional stressor of the presence
of the Growlers in their habitat put them over the brink? Would the Growler noise cause
their extinction? It is not only possible, it appears very likely. This needs to be studied
in-depth, before this project is permitted to proceed, because NEPA requires all direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts must be investigated and disclosed. The socio/economic
impacts of the Navys expansion have not been evaluated. This violates NEPA
requirements. The small communities in this region draw heavily upon tourism for their
economic well being. Disruptive and continuous noise from the Growlers---as well as the
dangers and risk of being exposed to invisible electromagnetic radiation---would
undoubtedly have a very negative effect on visitors to Olympic National Park and the
surrounding wilderness. People come to this remote corner of the continent to experience
the beauty, the stillness, and the pristine wilderness that is here. Squadrons of
supersonic warjets conducting very noisy training exercises in the skies above Olympic
National Park for most days of the year, up to 12 hours a day, would seriously degrade a
visitors wilderness experience. How will the training exercises affect visitors to Olympic
National Park? Who will choose to expose their families to the invisible but potentially
harmful electromagnetic radiation? Will Olympic National Park need to put a disclosure
on thier literature that they are not responsible if visitors get harmed by the noise or the
radiation? As vacationers decide to go elsewhere for their recreation, what will happen to
the local economy here? The Olympic Peninsula already has a very high unemployment
3362
rate.Thousands of local jobs are directly dependent upon the tourism to Olympic National
Park. What will happen to those jobs? Will the Navy be held responsible for the economic
decline of the communites here on the Peninsula? A thorough and impartial economic
analysis needs to be completed, as the over three million visitors to Olympic National
Park provide crucial revenue for all the communities surrounding the Park. Will the
businesses that depend on tourism (bed and breakfasts, lodges, motels, recreation
businesses, grocery stores, hotels, restaurants, tourist industry) also need to include
these sound disclosures in their advertising materials? Will the real estate businesses in
the area need to include sound disclosures when they sell properties in the area? What
will be the estimated decline in the value of real estate from these continual warfare
exercises? These costs need to be anticipated, and included in any cost/benefit analysis
of impacts. Will Olympic National Park be legally required to refund visitors their entry fee
when they discover their vacations are severely degraded from the noise the Growlers
are creating? Will they need to put a disclosure on all their marketing materials, as the
Deception Pass State Park now puts on their website? (apparently visitors were
demanded a refund after being exposed to jet noise for hours at a time) The Olympic
National Park has been designated as a United Nations World Heritage Site because of
its outstanding beauty, its rich diversity of life, its pristine ecosystem and its ourstanding
value to humanity. An international agreement ,adopted by the General Conference of
UNESCO in 1972, states that this designation is based on the premise that certain places
on Earth are of outstanding universal value and should therefore form part of the
common heritage of humankind. They are viewed as belonging to the whole world. The
United States is in accord that protection of the World Heritage sites is the duty of the
international community as a whole. What will happen when the international community
is made aware that the integrity of the this World Heritage Site is being sacrificed for our
military practices? Will there be an international outcry? It appears that the organization
has legal clout. Consider this, from their website: The UNESCO World Heritage
Convention is a treaty that has become, over the past 40 years, the foremost
international legal tool in support of the conservation of the world's cultural and natural
heritage. Today, 191 countries (called States Parties) have ratified the Convention,
making it an almost universally accepted set of principles and framework of action. The
Coalition expains that although the site that has been designated as a World Heritage
Site remains the property of the country on whose territory it is located, it is considered in
the interest of the international community to protect the site for future generations. Its
protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage
community as a whole. With that in mind, what will be the legal ramifications if we expose
this World Heritage Site to degradation? Will a large group of international citizens sue
the United States Navy? Will our hard earned taxpayer dollars be used to defend the
United States soverign right to degrade one of the most beatiful and delicate
ecosystems in the world because the Navy desired a place that was convenient and
would save gas money ? Can you imagine if the international community learned that
the area where the Pyramids of Egypt are, another World Heritage Site, were being
developed as a long-term military training Range? Wouldnt thousands of people around
the globe join a campaign to stop it? Its degradation would simply be unacceptable.
Similarly, the degradation of Olympic National Park and its surrounding wilderness areas
would be regarded as an offense of the same calibre. These are just a small percentage
of the many troubling questions that need to be addressed and satisfactorily answered by
the EIS. It is apparent that establishing an Electronic Warfare range in this region --- a
3362
very special corner of the world where not only thousands of families make their homes,
but millions of visitors come to experience the exquisite beauty and serenity that this
pristine wilderness offers ---is going to be very costly. It will be costly not only the Navy,
and all of the taxpayers that support the Navy, but for the families who live here. The
Navy Representative at the Pacific Beach meeting with the public---the officer introduced
as a supervisor of the EW training---when asked about the physical needs for their
training mission, said that the actual physical terrain was not important. He said that the
training could be done anywhere., and that the Olympic Peninsula was chosen because
of its efficiency-- (close to the base at Whidbey Island). He mentioned fuel costs. This
interview is documented in a video. As this man was the person in charge of the training
program for Navy pilots at Whidbey base, it would not be believable to the public that he
mispoke, and that the Olympic Peninsula was chosen because its special terrain was
essential for the pilots training. The true costs of locating this operation here have not
been assessed or analyzed. If they were, they would be revealed to be prohibitive. The
damage to the pristine ecosystem that is here, the economic fallout from degrading that
ecosystem, which drives the tourism to this area, the costs of damage to the health and
well-being of the thousands of families who live here and vacation here, the decline of
real estate values as the quality of life here on the peninsula is degraded by the continual
noise of Growlers, the cost of lawsuits from all these harmful impacts, as well as the loss
of things that are hard to put a price tag on, such as quality of life and the extinction of
species, is astronomical. Given that NEPA states that all Federal agencies are required
to consider alternative ways of accomplishing their mission which are less damaging and
protective of the environment and that Presidents Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) requires that all Federal agencies rigorously evaluate all reasonable alternatives
(1500.14 (a), it is essential that the EIS thoroughly explore all other possible lands that
are accessible to the Department of Defense for this operation. Given that the Navy is
now taking the helm in Electronic Warfare readiness, and the Army and AirForce are
letting go of that activity (RE: phone conversation with Naval public affairs official Ted
Brown) it is apparent that the Navy should be able to utilize the millions of square miles
that the Army has at its disposal. Considering the recommendations that the leadership of
U.S. Strategic Command has continually emphasized that the Department of Defense
needs to bring together the Navy, Air Force and Army in an integrated and harmonious
partnership when facing the new threats to National Security, it seems clear that now is a
great opportunity to do just that. The Army has millions of square miles of barren lands at
its disposal that may be ideal for an Electronic Warfare Training Range. Has this
alternative been thoroughly considered? It may not be as convenient as the Olympic
Peninsula, but I am suspecting that when the Navy considers all the lawsuits that are
most likely going to take place, the true cost of using the Olympic Peninsula will be seen
to be prohibitive. Federal law (NEPA and CEQ) mandates that the EIS includes a very
rigorous and thorough exploration of all alternative regions to conduct their training
mission, including the millions of square miles of barren lands that the Department of
Defense already owns. There are millions of acres of barren lands that are available to
the Department of Defense for Electronic Warfare training. I am confident that the Navy
can find several alternative locations that would prove much more suitable and
approprite. And much less costly. In the meantime, the Mount Home Air Force Base in
Idaho that is already being used for this purpose can continue to function, so as to not
interrupt the training practices. If there are scheduling challenges, I have full confidence
that the Air Force and the Navy can work together to solve them. There is only one
3362
Olympic National Park---and it is a place so beautiful, so unique, so rich in life and beauty
and biodiversity, that it is also designated as International Biosphere Reserve. It is
irreplaceable. I would imagine that millions of people would agree with this declaration. In
light of this, one question remains: Why would Americans tolerate the degradation of this
very special and irreplaceable place-- considered by many to be the most beautiful
Crown Jewel of our National Parks--- by training exercises that could be done
elsewhere?
3362
(b)(6)
3363

To Whom it may concern, I am a concerned citizen and resident of the Olympic
Peninsula where the Navy has plans to expand their jet fleet and EWR. Before this issue
became public, I had already noticed in the last year or so that there was more jet noise
over my house west of Port Angeles. I spend a lot of time outdoors, and this increase in
noise level has definitely affected my quality of life. The jet noise has even frightened my
dog when it is really loud, if a domestic animal is affected, how much more is this noise
then going to affect our wildlife on the peninsula? I have read the comments submitted by
Ronald N. Richards for Protect the Peninsula's Future. I agree with those comments and
I hereby adopt them as my own. They are copied below. Your proposed EIS should be
expanded as suggested therein. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Port Angeles,
WA 98363 (b)(6)
Re: Scoping Comments on the Fall 2014 U.S. Navy EIS for the
EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island Protect
the Peninsula's Future (PPF) is a non-profit, public benefit corporation registered in
Washington State since 1973. I am on the Board of Directors of PPF, and I have been
designated as its EWR Lead. Many of our members live, work, recreate, hike, fish, or
impacts of which have not been sufficiently evaluated in any environmental document.
PPF has grave concerns that the scope of the EIS as described in the Fall 2014 A Guide
to the Scoping Meeting (for the subject EIS) is much too limited to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That act requires all federal agencies to
prepare an EIS whenever they undertake any significant action, and further stipulates
that all activities that are functionally related must be included. The geographic area
proposed to be covered by the EIS is limited to the Whidbey Island area generally, and to
landings, takeoffs, and touch and go training at Ault and OLF fields. In this regard, a
diagram on the left side of the Growler Operations page of the Scoping Meeting Guide
is most telling. That diagram includes three flight paths that extend to the southwest of
the area shown as follows: See original comment for map Those flight paths, we are
sure, lead to the Navys proposed Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range (EWR).
The impacts of the Gowlers on those flight paths do not end at the boundaries of the
Navys diagram. The impacts extend as far as the Growlers fly. Under NEPA those
impacts must be evaluated in the EIS both in the area between Whidbey Island and the
proposed EWR, and in the area of the proposed EWR. Because that was not done in the
Navys Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed EWR, it should be done now.
This is also necessary under the 1988 Master Agreement between the Department of
Defense and the US Department of Agriculture. That Master Agreement requires the
Forest Service to study both the impacts of the proposed land-based training activities
and the impacts of the proposed use of airspace if directly associated with the land
based training. We are mindful that the Navys EA for the EWR states at Page 2-8: All
of the EW training activities and locations that would be associated with the
implementation of the Pacific Northwest EW Range were analyzed in the NWTRC
EIS/OEIS. The NWTRC EIS/OEIS has an October 2010 Record of Decision that
approved an alternative that included EW training activities associated with the

copy is shown below. See original comment for map. It is commendable that the Navy
has gone to such extents to study the impacts of the 36 new Growlers at OLF. However,
the same detailed portrayal of flight paths of Growlers going to and returning from, and
using, the proposed EWR, is essential for a proper evaluation of the impacts in those
locations. Because there are 15mobile emitter sites in the proposed EWR, and one fixed
emitter site, there are essentially 16 OLFs in the proposed EWR. A detailed portrayal of
flight paths for each of the 16 proposed emitter sites is needed. The same is true of every
possible flight path to and from the proposed EWR. With neither the NWTRC EIS nor the
3363
NWTT EIS having evaluated Electronic Combat in the Olympic MOAs, or aircraft flights in
the area between Whidbey Island and those MOAs, the impacts of the 82 or so Growlers
currently at NASWI, as well as the proposed 36 new Growlers, must now be evaluated in
the proposed EIS. Prior to preparing an EIS as suggested above, the Navy should
consider that the Master Agreement referred to above authorized military use of National
Forest lands only if that use is compatible with other uses and in conformity with
applicable forest plans, provided the Department of Defense determines and
substantiates that lands under its administration are unsuitable or unavailable. NASWI is
already conducting electronic warfare training at several Department of Defense bases in
the Northwest that include restricted airspace and nearly half a million acres of land. Only
3363
(b)(6)
Future, Inc.
3363
(b)(6)
3364
port ludlow, WA 98365

The Olympic Peninsula is a pristine environment. There are too many questions around
the impact that these proposed activities will have on the delicate species in the area.
The navy has other areas that are already in use that could easily accommodate the
additional activity without the potential of jeopardizing the complex ecosystem on the
Olympic peninsula.
(b)(6)
3365

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island since 2006 In the last year, noise and
over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has exceeded anything I have ever before
experienced. My health is severely impacted by the Growlers. I have tinnitus, constant
ringing in the ears beginning three years ago- when the Growlers began flying overhead.
I am located near the Bay and find the sound is magnified significantly. Sometimes the
smell of the fuel is so prevalent- it smells like kerosene- that my eyes tear. My young dog
is also showing similar symptoms. The week of Dec. 15th I experienced 11 hours and 12
continuous hours every day of Growler long loud rumbles. The measuring device ranged
from 75 decibels to 112, 119, 123.7 decibels ( as measured by my neighbor.) This past
week, January 5th through today- has been particularly impacting- the Growlers seem to
be louder and more constant than ever before. I notice anxiety reactions- my heart starts
to pound and I find myself in a hyper vigilant state. In the morning when I walk my dog
along the cliffs, facing Whidbey Island directly across the Bay, I feel as if my dog and I
are under attack. Sometimes the sounds of the Growlers continue well past 11:30PM at
night. On my last walk of the evening- when it is very dark and used to be so peaceful- it
feels as if my dog and I , as we walk along my driveway, through the woods, away from
the water, we are impacted by the sounds of the Growlers. There have been occasions
where a Growler flew right overhead, just above the tree line. My dog literally ducked and
was most noticeably affected by the sounds overhead. By the way, I know that I can feel
what I think is the low frequencies throughout my whole body. It is frightening. I am in my
sixties and have been healthy all my life- until the advent of the Growlers. I had guests
this past summer. They were all shocked by the noise level. One friend, a professor near
retirement visited me from Florida. When the Growlers flew overhead, ( we were on the
beach in front of my place)- my friend literally grabbed his daughter and tried to shield her
head. This was an automatic response by someone who tends to be quite rational and
not the reactive type. He was in shock reacting from that place of fight, flight or paralysis.
My friend had been considering retirement in the San Juan Islands. That possibility was
negated in one instant. All the reasons I have chosen to live here are being degraded by
San Juan County a no significant impact area. This is not a valid statement. - The Navy
should conduct continuous sound measurements in the southern portion of San Juan
County over a one-month period. - The EIS should consider the impacts of low frequency
noise - The EIS should include peak noise levels in addition to daily averages - The EIS
should consider health effects of Startle Reaction, Loss of Control, Sleep Disturbance
and Impacts on Children - The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that
bases Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. - The EIS should evaluate
noise mitigation measures such as minimize flight routes over or near populated areas
and to fly above 3,000 feet; deploy a Hush House or Ground Run-up Enclosure; deploy
noise suppression measures for the Growler engines; notify citizens in advance of
Growler training operations at Ault Field. - This EIS should conduct all analysis from the
Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments Please help! thank you for
your consideration, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3366

There are a number of issues I would like to see addressed in the full EIS. The scope of
the EIS should be as full as possible because the impact of this project is so great.
Factors that should be considered in the draft EIS include: 1. Supplemental noise
measurements. In other words, the noise measurements to date have not taken into
account the totality of the sound impact. Thus, additional instruments and measures need
to be included. 2. There are several human health effects that should be addressed, in
particular: a. The impact of the noise on children, not just their immediate behavior, but
their hearing and their developmental process. b. The impact on both adults and children
of the sleep disturbance caused by the aircraft. Again, these can be behavioral,
psychological or developmental. c. The startle reaction to the sudden noise from these
aircraft its attendant dangers, both physically and psychologically. d. The impact of the
loss of control felt by residents because of the Navy's actions. 3. The EIS should also
look at reasonable alternatives to basing the Growlers at Whidbey. This has not been
considered or presented to the public. 4. The economic impact is also a huge factor. In
particular, people come to Jefferson County and the Olympic Peninsula to enjoy natural
beauty, among other things. Port Townsend, Port Angeles and Forks, among others
stand to lose considerably if noise drives away those who undergird their economies. 5.
The health impact on animals, including people's pets as well as endangered or
threatened species must be addressed. It is not clear that the Navy has given much real
consideration to the health and well-being of the whole community. It assumes that it will
"protect" us by conducting these activities, but risks actually destroying health and
well-being, quality of life, and the economy.
(b)(6)
3367
PORT ANGELES, WA 983627184

I do not think it is compatible for Navy planes to be flying near and/or over the Olympic
Peninsula in Washington as much of the peninsula is designated as a National Park. The
airplane noise that would result would have a negative impact on this beautiful, natural,
quiet place.
(b)(6)
3368

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island since 1989. Noise from NAS Whidbey
flights has been a problem since I first arrived. However, in the last few years since the
introduction of the Growlers, noise and over-flights from the Growlers at Ault field has
exceeded anything we have experienced. Our quality of life is increasingly degraded by
the constant noise, vibration and intrusive over-flights of Growlers, as well as the fuel
smell in our otherwise pristine air. The Navy considers San Juan County a no significant
impact area. This is clearly false. - The Navy should conduct continuous sound
Assessments. An EIS should have been conducted before the Growlers were even
introduced. I am not supportive of the status quo as the "No Action" alternative.
Conditions AS THEY ARE NOW are intolerable. Noise mitigation needs to be addressed
at the level we are experiencing now. To repeat, the existing conditions are needing to be
remedied. Please take quite seriously the recommendations above.
(b)(6)
3369

I want to strongly state that I expect the Navy and all entities involved in this project (NW
warfare testing/training zone) to do their utmost to fairly (objectively) produce an
all-inclusive EIS in order to preserve this beautiful peninsula and all who inhabit it. Please
be open to possibilities of compromise. Thank you. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3370
, WA 98358
The eis must include an accurate analysis of cumulative impacts of the noise from the
overflights, the air and water quality from emissions (and fuel dumping), and impacts to
wildlife in addition to people. And the noise analysis must not be a flimsy averaging of
noise---that is like averaging the noise of a shooting range over a 24 hour period.
(b)(6)
3371

(b)(6)
. Lopez Island, WA 98261 09 JAN 2015 EA-18G Growler EIS Project

Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic 6506 Hampton BLVD. Norfolk,
VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS Subject: Comments--EIS EA-18G Growler Airfield
Operations, NAS Whidbey I. Thank you for including the input of San Juan County
residents in the above EIS. I have had several concerns about air operations out of NAS
Whidbey for several years, and the current plan to base 22 additional Growler aircraft at
NAS Whidbey will exacerbate the problems. The following is a summary of my concerns.
Affected area My family and I live on Lopez Island, Washington, approximately 11 miles
across the Strait of Juan De Fuca from Ault Field at NAS Whidbey. There are no
significant land features between the two locations, and consequently the sound from
takeoffs and engine tests at Ault Field is clearly and strongly audible. This noise is in
addition to the noise of Navy aircraft which commonly fly directly overhead. Both
overflights and airfield operations occur on all days of the week and from 0700 to 2300.
Despite this, San Juan County as a whole was deemed "outside the affected area" of
Growler operations in the 2012 Environmental Assessment. Such a claim needs to be
tested by actual measurements. Please conduct continuous sound measurements in the
southern portion of San Juan County over a period of at least one month. Characteristics
of noise Since silence is a valued part of Island lifestyle, and NAS Whidbey operations
cannot reasonably be predicted by civilian residents, the intermittent and seemingly
random nature of such operations creates a further deleterious effect which has not been
accounted for in previous studies. Furthermore, the 2012 Environmental Assessments
used only the "A" weighting, which excludes lower-frequency sound. Lower-frequency
sound is generally perceived as more significant or "louder" than higher frequencies, and
using only "A" weighting led to the conclusion in 2012 that Growler noise is significantly
quieter than Prowler noise, when in fact there is no appreciable difference to the ordinary
bystander. Finally, sound measurements and projections in 2012 were made under the
assumption that afterburners would never be in use. This assumption is very difficult to
understand, especially since many of the Growler missions are, in fact, training missions.
I request that sound measurements for the new EIS should include the "C" weighting,
Sound Exposure Level, Peak Sound Level, should document the projected annual
number of noise events that exceed 6dB SEL and Lmax in 5dB increments, and should
include projections based on afterburner use. Psychological effects The psychological
effects of Growler operations need to be taken into account as well. San Juan County
residents are routinely exposed to 90-114 dBA blasts of jet noise in an area with very low
background noise. Residents cannot control nor predict these bursts of noise, or the
patterns into which they fall. This unpredictable and sudden noise disrupts sleep,
conversation, live performances, television and radio listening, and mental concentration.
The low frequency noise and accompanying vibration create their own problems which
even hearing protection cannot solve. It is not uncommon for our entire house to vibrate
sympathetically with an overhead jet, or even an engine test on the ground, 11 miles
away. Growlers routinely fly over the local school and preschool, disrupting our children's
education, which is clearly an adverse effect on the community. Therefore, the EIS
should address the health and psychological effects of sleep disturbance, loss of control,
and startle reactions, as well as the effects of jet noise on children. NAS Whidbey should
avoid flight plans which send jets over Lopez School and Lopez Island Preschool.
Economic effects Silence and isolation are two of the main reasons people choose to live
in San Juan County. The county is also heavily dependent on a tourist economy based
on the area's natural beauty, quiet, and isolation. The proposed additions of more aircraft
to NAS Whidbey would threaten and disrupt all these qualities, and therefore our county's
economy. Please address economic impacts to San Juan County and throughout
northwest Washington State in the new EIS. Alternatives No alternatives to basing the
Growlers out of NAS Whidbey have been considered. I believe that relocating the
Growlers to another facility, perhaps in a more supportive community, is a reasonable
alternative and should be explored in accordance with regulations. Higher cost is not
normally a factor in U.S. military decisions or planning, and should not be used in this
case as an excuse. Please fully evaluate one or more alternatives to basing these
Growlers on Whidbey Island, and fully evaluate measures to mitigate the noise of existing
and replacement aircraft. Independence of the EIS Due to the above inadequacies of the
2012 Environmental Assessment, and the 2005 EA as well, the new EIS analysis should
be conducted entirely independent of the earlier assessments, or their Records of
Decision. Sincerely, (b)(6)
3371
(b)(6)
3372

Greetings, I have lived in Jefferson County for nine years, drawn here for the tranquility
and natural beauty of the Olympic Peninsula, as well as the great people. I moved here
intending, and hoping, to be able to spend the rest of my life in this beautiful and peaceful
place. The increased operations of Navy Growlers over Port Townsend is a growing
concern for me as these activities have had direct adverse impact on me personally. Last
summer (2014) I found myself experiencing a never before experienced high-level panic
attack and physical nausea during what extended into an hour of fly-overs after 10pm at
night. Initially part of my terror was that I had no idea what was happening and there
had been no warning of any kind (such as an air raid signal.) I was impacted by an
intense and nearly constant oscillating rumbling vibration rather than a sense of overhead
average airplane noise so I didnt recognize that this sound was coming from Navy jets.)
Obviously, the experience was quite unnerving and disturbing. Since that time I have had
three more adverse reactions when the air traffic exceeded current norms. Ive spoken
(via email) extensively with office Welding and with several other Navy spokespeople
(officers and civilian representatives) in person during the recent public information day at
Fort Worden. What I learned at that information day is that everyone in the region should
be able to easily access this information and discussion with Navy officials for months
rather than weeks before any change in operations that impact the public is made so
the public can be honestly informed and engaged. I am writing again today to express the
need for this kind of access to the process and my outrage at the lack of concern for the
public that seems to be built into the current process. Specifically Im writing to express 8
overall concerns: 1) Timeframe and 2) Transparency with the Public. The public needs
more time to learn about and weigh in on the issues. The way in which the public is
informed and given access to comment and think about the interconnected issues and
impacts needs to be opened up, made more transparent and more holistic as we are
impacted by the sum total of operations changes and policy-setting precedents, not only
by piecemeal changes. I agree with my neighbor's assessment: "Breaking the growing
Navy mission into separate environmental statements is abusive to the public." It is unfair
and misleading. I believe adding more Growlers will degrade the quality of our regions
life and is in excess of what is truly necessary for national defense. Regarding the
overlapping issues which the current protocols continue to separate into distinct EIS
One focuses on ships, one re impact on marine mammals; another EA claims the entire
western Olympic Peninsula for electromagnetic training. One is on jet noise. As a
citizenry affected by the overall impact of all these issues we need to be able to access
information, study, discuss and make informed comment, and to be listened to
respectfully about the issues and impacts as a whole so that decisions made by the
military truly take us into account. I object that the ground based activities, covered in the
Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range EA, were segmented from the draft EIS Im
writing about today. The impacts of those activities, and the impacts on the areas that the
36 new EA-18Gs will be flying over, as well as the existing 82 Growler jets, should be
covered in this EIS. 3) Significance of impacts. In my experience there is a cumulative
effect of impacts. The EA which declares increasing military jet noise is "insignificant" is
in clear disregard for my own and many of my neighbors experience. Insignificant to
whom? And over what length of time via repeated exposure? WITHOUT ANY
ADDITION IN THE CURRENT NUMBER OF GROWLERS WE ALREADY HAVE CAUSE

FOR GREAT CONCERN regarding diminishment of individual and collective!
HEALTH and negative impact on QUALITY OF LIFE, sleep disturbance etc in our region,
that are being caused directly by activity of the existing fleet of Growler jets. 4) Premature
Action. It is unwise, unjust and economically irresponsible to consider adding jets when
current impacts are not yet known, actual on-the-ground citizen's experience has not yet
been adequately quantified. As citizens, we are impacted NOW. SO much is UNKNOWN
and not QUANTIFIABLE regarding what kind of impacts an increase in both number of
jets, noise and frequency of operations plus the additional planned growler-related
activities on the ground will cause. (As I understand it the ground operations plans are
at least in part justifying the so-called need for the additional jets). But FIRST THINGS
FIRST: Slow down new decisions and spending and assess CURRENT IMPACTS before
moving forward. 5) EIS Methodology needs improvement. New measurement methods
are needed. Extent of what is measured needs to be expanded. The current methodology
of determining sound impact on humans through averaging, using measuring techniques
that dont include actual measurements of airplanes in flight including the planes
afterburners hides the planes real impacts on humans!!!! Sound measurement and
analysis in the EIS should include afterburners. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments incorrectly determined that there was no adverse noise impact. This is just
not so. ASK THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE WHO ARE BEING ADVERSELY
IMPACTED NOW, at current activity levels. Low frequency sounds impact humans and
the EIS should document the projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL
and Lmax in 5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan,
Jefferson and Clallam counties. . The EIS should also address sleep disturbance and
inquire/measure for other kinds of physical responses such as dizziness, nausea,
nervousness/anxiety and loss of appetite (these are things Ive personally experienced in
response to flyovers). A survey of the residents in the impacted area should document
the extent of this problem. 6) Mitigation of impacts. Improvements in technology needed.
Explore actions that can be taken now, prior to any increase in fleet. The Growler aircraft
should be made to be quieter, as commercial jets have been. Per my conversations at
Fort Worden, EVEN THOSE OFFICERS STATIONED AT NAS AGREE THAT THAT
THE AIRCRAFT NOISE CAN BE PROBLEMATIC, and IMPACTS THEM. Mitigation of
required in Jefferson and Clallam Counties as well. Jet aircraft can deafen people, create
health disorders and interfere with convalescence from illness. An alternative that
developed and studied. A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used for
noise suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. Test, acquire
and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the
Growlers. Growler training flight paths from NAS Whidbey should be modified to minimize
routes over the south end of Lopez Island, Port Townsend, Port Angeles, and Forks.
Growler training flights over populated areas should be above 3,000 feet elevation.
Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights. THESE THINGS SHOULD
BE ADDRESSED NOW at Current activity levels, before any new jets are brought into
operation. 7) Economic impact Local impact should be seriously considered vis a vis
positive economic impact to those who profitting from Growler sales! I believe that the
increased noise of the Growler squadron will damage the economy of the San Juans,
Jefferson, Whidbey and Clallam. Roaring fleets of planes practicing for many hours a
3372
day- late into the night destroys the tranquility and quality of life of the people who live
here, who come to visit. There are other alternatives and they must be considered. The
Navy has already created what is for many citizens living near the Coupeville OLF a
self-described "nightmare." The purchase of additional growlers and the phasing out of
using Mountain Home for training will cause an increase in frequent jet noise flying over
Port Townsend. If PT and PA experience what Lopez and Whidbey residents subject to
low altitude overflights have, our peace of mind, our childrens health, the health of the
ecology of which we are a part will all suffer. Increasing flight noise and defense
presence in both populated and less populated areas will discourage visitors and tourism
and reduce property values throughout the regions impacted. The EIS should address
Counties. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires
that Agencies shall Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives. The EIS should rigorously evaluate one or more alternatives for basing
Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island before any additional jets are
brought in. 8) Consider Future Generations. Finally, the will of the people of this region
should be heeded. The custom of native people to consider the next seven generations
should be heeded as well. Perhaps a public referendum of some kind could demonstrate
that the majority of San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson, Clallam and Island County
citizens dont want the planes to be purchased. (In my view there are much better,
essential uses for those funds to serve human needs and infrastructure needs.) The
fuel consumption of additional jets threatens the ecology, and moreover their use in
training destroys our tranquility. Some of my neighbors are seriously concerned that
increasing the number of navy jets and operations is more likely to incite rather than
deter military conflict with nations capable of threatening a nuclear war. Unfortunately,
many in Congress, and in the defense business, see war as an economic necessity. It
doesn't have to be this way. We live in a democracy where every person's voice
deserves to be heard, where every life human and all the species that are also
impacted by Navy operations on land, air and in our precious seas deserves to be
honored and heeded when decisions that effect us all are made. In the name of our
children and the wonderful inspiring majesty of the Olympic Peninsula I say no to more
growlers. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely and respectfully, (b)(6)
3372
(b)(6)
3373

These comments and requests for EIS scope are not about noise, but about impacts of
increased numbers of expected PTSD victims in communities in the orbit of NAS
Whidbey Island. I am a longtime San Juan Islands resident with many relatives and
friends who are veterans, from my Dad and stepDad (WWII), age peers in Vietnam, and
now their children and grandchildren. Tomorrow I am attending a memorial for my the
second longtime veteran and islands friend lost to suicide in the last year. John was the
second military pilot veteran friend Ive lost to suicide just on Orcas Island. He died last
Veterans Day. The other had recently been based at NAS Whidbey Island. You all know
the pain of victims and the fallout trauma of partners, children, loved ones and
communities. Its emotionally devastating. Currently, across all military services, one-third
of discharged personnel are claiming PTSD disability. I spoke with several of the pilots at
the Dec 3 Scoping meeting on Lopez. Each was sure he did not have PTSD (one quite
vehemently so; he came up to me later in the meeting to drive his mental health home on
me), and had never known any pilot or ground crew with PTSD. None knew current
programs to evaluate or for self-referrals. This is alarming. EIS impacts now include such
factors as increase demands on local schools, hospital bed needs, traffic congestion
points. While my two pilot friends suicides did not entail direct violence on anyone else,
and occurred following honorable discharge (one was just retired), this is not always the
case. I request that the EIS scope include determination of the expected increase in
prevalence and incidence of PTSD with the added basing of Growler squadrons. This
includes PTSD in their families as well. The epidemiology of PTSD in the Navy, at NAS
WI, among Growler pilots, crews and families is available. Each squadron of Growlers
entails basing of xx personnel, plus families. How many additional PTSD diagnoses per
year will be expected per squadron based here? Applying the multiplier factors available
through base medical and MP data, and VA data, what is the predicted number, kind,
frequency and cost to public services of PTSD incidents of medical emergencies,
violence and crime? What is the impact of that added burden on surrounding
communities: Family Resource Centers Domestic Violence and Womens Shelters Drug
and Alcohol treatment programs School special needs programs for children of afflicted
911 medical calls 911 crime calls Emergency room visits Hospital admissions Court
cases stemming from above In addition to impacts of active duty Growler basing, the
Navy can determine, from past experience and current residence in surrounding
communities of veterans who had been based at Whidbey, the additional number of
Growler-associated veterans who can be expected to settle in the area following
discharge, what their PTSD rate is, what their length of residence here is expected to be,
and therefore the annualized cost of additional social, academic, medical, police, court
services they will burden upon host communities here. Once the PTSD impacts of
Growler basing are measured, the Navy should propose mitigation strategies to minimize
costs and compensate the public purse for those which cant be mitigated. Thank you for
considering these comments on a subject difficult to broach, but which everyone knows is
one of the elephants in the room with basing expansions, perhaps especially of high
stress, hi function, hi risk combat aircraft squadrons.
(b)(6)
3374
Victoria,
The sonic disturbance is easily heard inside our house in Victoria, BC. We would
appreciate it stopping as we often wonder if it is an earthquake, and it interrupts the
peace and quiet in our home.
(b)(6)
3375
I'll be brief: We do not need any more damn scoping. No more circuses by progressive
agitators who hate on our Navy. Just get the study written. Just do it. Remember:
OLFers. Want. Alternative. Three. PLEASE. I beg you, Alternative Three is what OLFers
deserve. Alternative Three is the most rock AND roll at OLF!
(b)(6)
3376

PT AirWatchers expresses our concern over the Navy Growler Proposal, especially
regarding air emissions as well as other concerns expressed here and by other
commenters. 1. Overall impact of combined project. Segmenting. 1.1. The Navy is
presenting this program expansion as one of a series of programs which it claims are
separate although related. This approach, known as segmenting, should not be accepted
-- and indeed, we believe that it is prohibited by law -- in that it is used to break large
projects into smaller pieces that each individually might be able to be pushed through
regulatory processes whereas the environmental impacts of the complete program if
were fully scoped, would not. 1.2. In this case, the full program includes regular flights
across the northern Olympic Peninsula and nearby waters, usage of electronic warfare
equipment on National Forest lands on the western Olympic Peninsula, impacts to
Olympic National Park, and parts of the program to be conducted upon and around
neighboring waters, Impacts will accrue to humans; the environments of our forests, air
and waters; as well as creatures that live in those land, air and water environments. 1.3.
Regardless, even this segment of the program will have significant impacts to all those
impacted as above, and thus must be rejected based on those impacts. 1.4. Please
include comments objecting to the other segments of this program as part of the
comments to this program, as those objections and concerns pertain. 2. Links to studies
and analyses of pollution from jet aviation are below, as examples of negative impacts of
increasing the jet flights over Whidbey, Okanogan, the Olympic Peninsula and
surrounding areas. They show that these impacts are significant and negative, and
therefore should count against the project. These impacts are to air, land, and water. As
well, they impact those living and recreating below the flights, as well as the personnel
working on and conducting the flights, and therefore should count against the project. 3.
Air-related pollution 3.1. Pollution from increased jet flights comes from several sources
including emissions from fuel combustion and in-flight dumping of jet fuel. 3.1.1.
Emissions include heavy metals, VOCs, soot and more, which spread widely according to
the height at which the planes are flying, but fall mainly in areas below the flight path(s),
polluting the ground or water upon which they fall. 3.2. GHG/greenhouse gases. Since
the Growlers will be flying nearly continuously over the north and western Olympic
Peninsula, this program represents an unconscionable increase in GHGs and CO2
emissions in a time when we absolutely need to reduce these. 3.2.1. To quote from an
analysis by Chris Greacen, PhD (attached here: Carbon Dioxide emissions from an EA
18G Growler): 3.2.1.1. "The average jet fuel consumption rate (based on typical
operations patterns) of the EA-18G Growler is 1,304 gallons per hour. Combustion of jet
fuel produces 9.57 kg CO2 per gallon. The CO2 produced is thus 9.57 kg * 1304 gal/hour
= 12479 kg/hour or about 12.5 metric tons of CO2 per hour." 3.3. Fine particulates. Fine
particulates emitted by jet fuel combustion have many negative effects: 3.3.1. They serve
as points for condensation of water vapors, which increases cloud cover and alters the
climate. 3.3.2. Fine particulates hang in the air longer than larger particulates and thus
have more time to react chemically with the air to produce toxic compounds. 3.4. Other
fuel combustion emissions. Air emissions from the fuel combusted by these jets will
include 4. Profligate waste of fossil fuels. The amounts of fuel that the jet planes use
should be included in the project analysis, and would count as another negative against
it: 4.1. The environmental effects of extracting and transporting fossil fuels required for
the ongoing conduct of this project must be considered. 4.2. It is ironic that when national
security is increasingly based on access to sources of fossil fuel, this project is being
considered, when it wantonly expends such vast quantities of these very fuels. 4.3.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/r99013.pdf 5. Negative health effects to
workers/personnel who handle aircraft maintenance due to short and long-term chemical
exposure to JP-8 jet fuel and other chemicals related to ongoing conduct of the project
must be considered and would count as a negative against it: 5.1. Jet fuel exposure
causes toxic effects to aircraft fueling, maintenance and other operations personnel, as
revealed by conducting a literature search on PubMed, the National Institute of Health's
online medical library 5.1.1. These effects include: immune system suppression,
degradation of balance, susceptibility to hearing loss, "postural sway", increased cancers,
impairment of brain function and a variety of other long and short term damage that can
be passed along through generations. 5.1.2. Links to these studies can be found at
PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed , by entering "jet fuel exposure" 5.1.3.
Example titles: 6. 7. Noise impacts will disrupt health, comfort and well-being of those in
and beyond the project's range. 7.1. Several commentators have characterized the
detrimental impacts of ongoing and increase aircraft noise on the health, comfort and
well-being of humans living, working and recreating in the range of the proposed project.
8. Effect on wildlife on land, air, sea will be harmful. 8.1. All of the negative impacts to
humans will accrue to wildlife on land, air and sea, and have been commented upon by
other commentors. Articles demonstrating negative impacts of increasing jet flights over
our areas, especially in the amounts proposed: 1. EPA Evaluation of Air Pollutnat
Emissions from Subsonic Commercial Jet Aircraft 1.1. EPA EPA420-R-99-013 April 1999
1.2. http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/r99013.pdf 1.2.1. This applies, as
military jet fuel is substantially similar to commercial aviation fuel. 2. US Air Force Aircraft
Pollution Emissions 2.1. www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0769482 3. Christian
Science Monitor 2/10/2005 3.1. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0210/p14s02-sten.html
Jet pollution: drawing a line in the sky "Although jets create far less greenhouse gas than
power plants or automobiles [in aggregate, as a percentage of total GHG emissions - this
article seems to consider "per gallon"], they have an outsize impact because of where
they spew it - the delicate upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, five to seven miles
up from Earth's surface. " "The result: growing scientific concern that jets may be turning
the skies into a hazier, heat-trapping place." 4. Huffington Post - Aviation Fuel's Toxic
Lead Emissions Draws Lawsuit Against EPA, Huffington Post, 3/12/2012 4.1.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/lead-emissions-children-aviation-fuel_n_1338
131.html 4.2. "A study out of Duke University in 2011 found that the closer a child lived to
a North Carolina airport with avgas, the more lead was likely flowing through that child's
blood. The metal doesn't dissipate in the environment. Lead spewing from a plane may
eventually settle onto a ball field, a swimming hole or a family's vegetable garden." 5.
Wikipedia - Environmental Impacts of Aviation 5.1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation 5.2. Although this article
primarily concerns domestic aviation, it points toward increases in NOx emissions, water
vapor (condensation due to fine particulate emissions) & fine particulates. 6. PubMed/NIH
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed , enter "jet fuel exposure" 6.1.1. These especially
show damage that accrues to personnel working on the operations. 6.1.2. Examples:
6.1.2.1. Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Mar;108(3):183-92. Personal exposure to JP-8 jet
fuel vapors and exhaust at air force bases. Pleil JD1, Smith LB, Zelnick SD. 6.1.3.
3376
Characterization of inhalation exposure to jet fuel among U.S. Air Force personnel.[Ann
Occup Hyg. 2012] 7. PubMed/NIH - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed , enter "jet
aviation environment" (b)(6)
, Port
Townsend WA 98368 (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3376
(b)(6)
3377

I chose to live in Port Townsend years ago, because of the beauty and diversity of the
Olympic Peninsula; the quiet, pastoral way of life; and the abundant opportunities to
enjoy relatively pristine waters and lands. I fear that these rare qualities will be lost, or at
least severely damaged, by the proposed expansion of Navy activities that more than
doubling the Growler fleet would allow. The huge impacts in our airspace, on our public
lands, and in offshore waters will detrimentally affect not only humans, but wildlife that
dwells in those realms. I object to the fact that the ground-based activities, covered in the
Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range EA, are being considered separately from
the EIS addressing expansion of the Growler Fleet. Its an open secret that the additional
jets will be used in the electronic warfare training, and this context is critical to assessing
the overall impacts of fleet expansion. The impacts of Electronic Warfare activities, as
well as the greatly increased number of overflights by the 36 new EA-18Gs (as well as
the existing 82 Growler jets) should be covered in this EIS. Furthermore, nothing has
been provided to the public regarding impacts from fuel-dumping over water, our
communities, or the Olympic National Forest or Olympic National Park. The Navy admits
that it does occur, primarily over the area to the west of the runways at Naval Air Station
Whidbey Island, but contends that it occurs at 8,000 feet, and therefore the fuel
"vaporizes before it reaches the surface." The Navy has provided no proof that this is
indeed the outcome. In any case, jet fuel is laden with heavy metals and other toxics that
by forces of gravity eventually settle out on lands and water below. What is the
composition of the fuel used in Growler jets? What are the toxic effects to life and the
environment? Another question to ask is: Has independent research been conducted, on
effects of jet fuel emissions or fuel dumping over the National Forest and National Park,
or over communities near where fuel is dumped? Also of deep concern to me are the
greenhouse gas impacts from all the additional Growler flights that an enlarged fleet
would support. Calculations by a UC-Berkeley physicist show that the amount of carbon
dioxide produced by a Growler jet using 1,304 gallons per hour amounts to 12.5 metric
tons of CO2 per hour. This means that an hour of flight emits about 23% more than the
annual (2011) CO2 emissions of a typical Washington state citizen! This is astounding,
and the climate impacts cannot be insignificant. I strongly recommend that the annual
projected consumption of jet fuel for the present and proposed, enlarged Growler fleet be
made public in the EIS and the probable climate pacts be studied by independent
scientists. The taxpayers who are footing the enormous fuel bill for this on the one hand,
and striving to limit their own carbon footprints on the other, are entitled to know this
information and understand what the consequences will likely be. This factor and the
many other objections citizens have about the expanded Growler fleet raises a $64 billion
question: Why cant Navy pilots use flight simulators to gain most of the training that the
expansion would support? As an American citizen, of course I want our country to be
militarily secure, but we as a people have already sacrificed considerable areas of public
land to bases, airfields, military ranges, etc. I simply do not understand why one of the
other many areas in the Western US already dedicated to military activity cannot be used
to accommodate the Navys purported needs. And I cannot accept that this little corner of
the country should be sacrificed and transformed into a militarized zone. Thank you for
the opportunity to make my comments for the public record.
(b)(6)
3378
Victoria, V8S 2N2

We live in a condominium in Oak Bay in Victoria, BC. When we first heard the noises and
felt the rumbling vibrations we did not know what was causing them. We thought that
there must be some blasting or construction very close to our home. We not only could
hear it but could also feel the low frequency rumbling. We were astonished to find out that
it was caused by the jets at Whidbey Island. The noise, vibrations and disturbances to
our lives are very disconcerting, disruptive and diminish everyone's enjoyment of their
property and quality of life. The positive side of this is that it is not constant. I am very
concerned that the Air Force is contemplating increasing the frequency and numbers of
jets that will affect us rather than working on minimizing the impacts for the surrounding
areas. Please give serious reconsideration for your plans of increasing this already
disruptive intrusion into so many people's lives!
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager: The Washington Trust for Historic
Preservation appreciates the opportunity to comment on the scoping process intended to
identify issues/areas of study for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of expanded
operations of EA-18G Growlers at Naval Air Station Whidbey. Established in 1976, the
Washington Trust is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the historic
and cultural resources of Washington through advocacy, education, collaboration and
stewardship. As the Area of Potential Effect has not been fully defined, our comments are
related to three primary areas: the Port Townsend National Historic Landmark District,
the Fort Worden National Historic Landmark District, and Ebeys Landing National
Historical Reserve. In addition to these three defined district areas, our comments also
apply to other identified historic and cultural resources determined to lie within the APE.
The Washington Trust respectfully requests that the EIS consider impacts to historic and
cultural resources arising from the following issues: 1. Impact of Growler jet noise in
terms of intensity, frequency, and vibration effects; 2. Impact for heritage tourists and the
potential economic detriment stemming from diminished ability to experience historic
places, participate in heritage-based recreation, and enjoy cultural resources; 3. Whether
or not jet noise can be effectively mitigated through some means and, if not, other types
of mitigation that may be appropriate; 4. Impact on property values and/or quality of life
issues that may result in a disincentive for private investment in the
rehabilitation/restoration of historic resources; 5. Impact to natural resources, including
view sheds and soundscapes, associated with the historic and/or cultural significance of
a location. Finally, where the potential historic significance of resources within the APE
have yet to be determined, survey efforts should be carried out establishing the presence
of resources/properties eligible for listing in a national, state or local register of historic
places, or that might contribute to a historic district eligible for the same. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment on this important matter. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
3380
Seattle, WA 98115
As a Washington state citizen who cares about the health and quality of life for our
children and their children, please restrict the use of any US Naval warfare ships,
equipment, processes or practices that could harm sensitive wildlife populations on or
surrounding the Olympic Peninsula, including those of electromagnetic warfare.
(b)(6)
3381

I have lived in Port Townsend for 24 years and until last year enjoyed the unspoiled
natural beauty of the Olympic Peninsula. Since then I am more and more disturbed by
the increasing over-fly sounds of the EA-18G Growler Navy jets. I have been following
the EIS process for the last year. It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012
NASWI without a full EIS and without sufficient study of the noise impacts, health
consequences, plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and the economic and
environmental impacts for the region. THE EIS SHOULD CONDUCT ALL ANALYSIS
FROM THE BEGINNING AND SHOULD NOT RELY ON, OR TIER OFF, THE
RECORDS OF DECISION FOR THE 2005 AND 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENTS. I oppose the planned expansion to add 36 more jets to the current fleet
of 82 EA-18G Growler Jets stationed at the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Sincerely,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3382
Lopez, WA 98261
Dear EA-18G Growler EIS Project Manager, I'm writing to express my deep concern
regarding the health, environmental and economic repercussion of the Navy's current
and future flight patterns and aircraft that fly over the San Juan Islands. The EIS should
afterburners in training flights. The EIS should address the health effects of Startle
Reactions. Medical surveys should be conducted on the impacted populations including
San Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. The EIS
Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). The EIS should specifically
shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. The EIS
developed and studied. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases
Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. was inappropriate not to evaluate
noise mitigation. At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). The EIS should address economic impacts
throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Please address
the Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments. I have been
following the EIS process for the past year. It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012
Sincerely,(b)(6)
3382
(b)(6)
3383
Victoria, WA V8R 2L9

I live in Victoria BC Canada and work in a building at the top of Sinclair Road up from
Cadboro Bay. I hear the Growlers several times a day when they are practicing. I find the
noise level loud and unsettling. I can appreciate the need for them to practice; however, if
there is a way to reduce that noise I would like to see development move in that direction.
I would like the review to take into consideration that the noise pollution does reach this
distance. Thank you for a chance to share my opinions. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3384
Victoria BC Canada, WA
Hello, I live in Victoria BC and I'm writing to express my concerns and
frustrationregarding the disruptive and loud noise that I've come to learn results from jet
military exercises. Please know that even with all my windows closed, I hear and feel
each 'rumble' inside my house. It's as though a small earthquake occurs each time. It is
very disconcerting, especially when you don't know what it is! I have had several
conversations with others who live all over Victoria and the sound seems to be disturbing
many people, no matter which area of town they live in. I also am concerned about the
impacts to wildlife and especially marine mammals with highly developed echolocation
abilities. We have noise bylaws so that individuals cannot disturb our peace. I request
that you please be a good neighbour and discontinue this practice all together or move
the exercises to a location that you would not be impacting the quality of so many
people's (and sensitive marine organisms') lives. Thank you for you consideration,
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3385

My family has lived on Whidbey Island since 1909 over 100 years. We live here for the
wholesome environment we enjoyed prior to the U. S. Navy taking some of our waterfront
land for NAS Whidbey in 1942 to provide Navy recreation. We can no longer ride our
horses on the beach a lifestyle long gone with our family land taken. My family lived on
Whidbey Island when our scenic Deception Pass Bridge was built in 1938. There are
historic family photos of the opening of the bridge. We have concerns for the stability of
the two-lane Deception Pass Bridge from heavy trucks passing over the bridge. I have
observed five fuel tanker trucks painted in olive drab passing over the bridge. According
to the State of Washington Department of Transportation this was a violation since the
Navy had not requested a permit. The bridge has been closed for over eight hours due to
a tractor-trailer semi truck blowing over in a strong gust of wind. All traffic to and from
Whidbey Island was interrupted. Has the U. S. Navy implemented plans to protect
Deception Pass Bridge from inappropriate use and harm? NAS Whidbey is located in the
valley of Dugualla Bay. At the time NAS Whidbey was constructed our family including
close relatives owned and farmed nearly all the adjacent land from the Frostad Farm to
Dike Road along Dugualla Bay. The Frostad family established their farm in 1840.
Dugualla Bay Dike to protect farmland was constructed in 1918. We are a family with
close ties supporting each other celebrating many family events together. We are
self-sufficient without dependence on the government. Will the U. S. Navy continue to aid
in maintenance of the flume gates at the dike? To the detriment of farmland the water
level inside the dike has already been raised by the Navy. U. S. Navy Growlers fly over
our crops. One family member owns a blueberry farm that was planted in 1946. She has
suffered loss of income from u-pick because patrons cannot tolerate Growler noise and
have concerns for pollution of the crop. Patrons travel to Whidbey Island to enjoy the
scenery, and enjoy picking blueberries when a Growler flies over they leave explaining
they cannot stand the noise. She is obligated to provide earplugs to protect patrons from
hearing loss but it is not adequate. We want to continue to enjoy walking the path of our
relatives to enjoy the fresh air and wildlife they also appreciated. We want to live in the
homes they built, pick fruit from the trees they planted. Our quality of life has been
severely compromised with constant interruption of earsplitting Growler noise our air
contaminated with jet fuel pollution. There are restrictions on agriculture concerning grain
crops in one of the finest areas to grow wheat and oats. This is a significant loss of
income and freedom. Retirement of our elders has been affected. Their land is their
retirement now lost due to restrictions mandated by Accident Potential Zones with no
compensation and loss of property value. It is the American dream to care for elders in
familiar surroundings handing down cherished family homes and livelihood. Many
friendships were formed with Navy personnel that continue today? The current wedge
between the Navy and long established residents did not exist in the 1940's. We were not
called un-patriotic or told if we dont like the noise we can move there was a respect for
our contribution. Before Growlers were stationed at NAS Whidbey there was a mutual
respect that is long gone. Why are we perceived as lacking patriotism when we have
been the victims of an invasion by our own military turned into refugees on our own land?
(b)(6)
3386
Victoria,
I live in Victoria on Vancouver Island and these aircraft cause incredible noise over here.
They disturb the local dogs and the noise is a deep rumbling like thunder and is very
frightening. This rumbling must be affecting marine mammals' welfare as well. Please
stop the Growlers.
(b)(6)
3387

I object to electronic warfare training and testing on the Olympic Peninsula and I object to
the way the Navy and the US Forest Service have separated the public notice and
response. I also object to the way the Navy handled its public meeting in Port Townsend
Dec 4, 2014 which further isolated public response by not holding an open meeting in
which the public could meet as a group and listen to the Navy's proposal and respond in
an open group rather than as the Navy maneuvered the public from site to site in the
auditorium. I object that the Navy has not explored the effects of fuel particles landing on
the ground or in the water. Does the Navy have research to show what the Growler fuel
contains and how that affects the surface when its hits? I live outside Port Townsend
near the mouth of Discovery Bay on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. We feel the vibrations of
the current jet flights over the area from Whidbey Island Air Station jets. What research
has the Navy done to prove these vibrations and sounds are not damaging to people,
waterfront bluff stability, or to wildlife--specifically birds? Protection Island at the mouth of
Discovery Bay is a Bird Sanctuary for 70% of the nesting seabirds in Puget Sound. Has
the Navy researched the environmental impact of increased jet activity on the
environmental sensitivity of Protection Island and the impact it will have on 70% of the
Puget Sound seabird population? Has the Navy considered the economic impact of
increased and more noisy jet traffic on the North Olympic Peninsula which relies on
tourism and has no industrial base? What the North Olympic Peninsula has is wildlife,
serenity, and wilderness beauty accessible to the public. Has the Navy done an
economic assessment to see how their plans could damage a fragile economy? I am a
real estate agent. I know hardly anyone moves to this area because there is a job here
for them. They move here to get away from noise and pollution. The Navy is proposing
both noise and pollution and has lacked transparency in its interaction with the local
population. The Navy has presented its proposals in pieces and has not given the public
good notice. I object to the Navy proposals and the way they have been proposed. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3388
Victoria, WA V8N3T9
We live in Victoria (actually Saanich) along the water. For years I have heard (and felt)
the noise associated with the Growlers. It has gotten substantially worse over the years,
now it is crazy making. It feels like a constant earthquake. I realize the work is important.
But it is driving your neighbours off the deep end. Please do not expand this program, if
anything please reduce it. This is impacting the quality of our lives. thank you. (please
note I am Canadian and your state field above does not include BC so I used
Washington).
(b)(6)
3389
victoriia, v8r1y3
omg the noise was unbelievalbe, we were at the cedarhill golf course taking a nice
evening walk about 5 pm and we thought it we couldnt figure out what it was. it was
echoing all over the place and we couldnt really tell from what direction it was coming. the
noise is unbearable and went on for ages
(b)(6)
3390
Ukiah, CA 95482
Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments I have been following the
EIS process. Both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments are deficient and
re-conduct a full analysis and should not rely on, or tier off of, the Records of Decision for
the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments.
(b)(6)
3391

We have rented and now own a home on south Lopez for 5 years. The noise of the
planes has increased significantly over the past year in particular. Last month (December
2014), vibrations of loud and low planes set off the fire alarm in our home when we were
not there, bringing the volunteer fire fighters from across the island. Yes, it is an issue.
The EIS should consider noise mitigation and other alternatives for these planes.
(b)(6)
3392
Victoria, BC Canada, V8T2C1

There are studies available that address the health effects of measurably loud noises. I
find the sound of theses aircraft to be disturbingly loud. Please do not continue the
exercises with these planes. Please conduct a well done independent study to properly
assess the effects on all humans and wildlife in earshot of these planes. Please
discontinue these exercises.
(b)(6)
3393

6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS Dear EA-18G Growler
EIS Project Manager, Please accept the following comments from Friends of the San
Juans (Friends) regarding the scope of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for
the U.S. Navys (Navy) proposal to continue and expand growler flight operations at
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. See 78 Fed. Reg. 54635 (Sept. 5, 2013). Friends is a
501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose mission for over 35 years has been to protect the
land, sea, water & livability of the San Juan Islands and the Northwest Straits through
education, citizen involvement, science, and law. Friends is based in Friday Harbor, San
Juan Island, and represents approximately 2000 members with homes throughout this
project area. These comments recommend the study of direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts associated with the proposal to expand EA-18G growler use at NAS Whidbey
Island. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) directs federal agencies to
prepare an EIS to pause and take a hard look at a proposal, including whether it is
necessary, resulting environmental impacts, and feasible alternatives. 42 U.S.C.
4321-4370(d); 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b), 1502.1. In taking that hard look, agencies must
review high quality, accurate scientific analyses. 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b). An EIS must also
include a full and fair discussion of a proposals direct and indirect environmental impacts
(40 C.F.R. 1502.1), consider the cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable activities
in conjunction with the proposed action (40 C.F.R. 1508.7), analyze all reasonable
alternatives that would avoid or minimize the actions adverse impacts (40 C.F.R.
1502.1), address measures to mitigate those adverse effects (40 C.F.R. 1502.14(f)),
and evaluate possible conflicts with other federal, regional, state, and local authorities (40
C.F.R. 1502.16(c)). As the Navy conducts its EIS, Friends encourages it to revisit the
underlying assumption from both of the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental
Assessments (U.S. Dept of the Navy, Final Environmental Assessment for Replacement
of EA-6B Aircraft with EA-18G Aircraft at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington
(Jan. 2005); U.S. Dept of the Navy, Final Environmental Assessment for the
Expeditionary Transition of EA-6B Prowler Squadrons to EA-18G Growler at Naval Air
Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington (Oct. 2012)) that the Growlers will
cause fewer noise impacts than their predecessors, the Prowlers. Over the past few
years, Friends has received increasingly concerned contacts by members of the public
worried about the new planes impacts to their quality of life. Friends therefore urges the
Navy to take a hard look at the Growlers noise emissions and their true impacts. With
this in mind, Friends recommends the following: (1) Geographic Scope of Noise
Analysis like the Navys two previous reviews of Growler expansions at NAS Whidbey
Island, the announcement for the current proposal omits a reference to impacts beyond
Whidbey Island. Given the substantial ongoing noise impacts to areas like San Juan
County, the EIS must study noise impacts both on Whidbey Island and beyond. See
http://sjcgis.org/aircraft-noise-reporting/ (providing map of reported incidents of aircraft
noise in San Juan County). (2) Quality of Noise Analysisin addition to the modeling
studies that the Navy has conducted for previous Environmental Assessments on
Growler impacts, the Navy should conduct actual physical measurements of noise
impacts. For example, the Navy should conduct continuous sound measurements in the
southern portion of San Juan County for at least a one-month period of Growler
exercises. The Navy must also include C weighted sound measurements and analysis to
account for the sound impacts that the Growler causes with its low frequency engine
noise. Previous measurements have treated Growler noise like all other noises and used
the A weighting, which evaluates noises impacts on the human ear and can be linked
with hearing loss. This analysis would also assist the Navy in evaluating its assumption
that Growlers cause fewer noise impacts than their predecessor Prowlers. The
substantial increase in reports of jet noise in San Juan County indicates that this
assumption is erroneous. In addition, the EIS must supplement its noise measurements
with Sound Exposure Level and Peak Sound Level studies in addition to day-night
average sound level studies. Such studies would more accurately characterize the noise
events experienced in San Juan County, which can occur at high volumes over low
duration. (3) Afterburner Noise AnalysisTo the extent that the Growlers use their
afterburners during takeoffs and carrier landing practice, the EIS must analyze their noise
impacts. (4) Health ImpactsThe EIS should study the health impacts associated with
the Growlers increased noise levels. Such impacts may include: (a) physiological
responses to sudden or high volume noises; (b) psychological and physiological impacts
associated with the inability to control or predict the noise; (c) impacts to youth during
school overflights; and (d) sleep disruption due to nighttime Growler engine operation. (5)
Noise Impacts to Faunathe EIS should study the impacts of Growler noise on pets and
wildlife that typically do not experience such noise events. (6) Economic ImpactsSan
Juan County derives a significant portion of its commerce through tourism and promotes
itself as a place to enjoy peace and quiet. For example, the San Juan County
Comprehensive Plan states in its Introductory Declaration of Vision and Commitment to
the Future of San Juan County that, [w]e support a pattern of economic growth and
development which serves the needs of our community, and which recognizes the rural,
residential, quiet, agricultural, marine and isolated nature of the islands. San Juan
County Comprehensive Plan A, 2, available at
http://www.co.san-juan.wa.us/Planning/docs/CompPlan/SectionA_2010-04.doc.pdf. The
EIS should evaluate the economic impacts of the Growler noise on San Juan County and
throughout northwestern Washington. (7) Alternativesthe EIS must consider a no
action alternative that would maintain the Growlers at their current, recently increased
number at NAS Whidbey. In addition, particularly due to the erroneous assumption in the
2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments that the Growlers would impose less noise
impact than the Prowlers, the EIS should evaluate the relocation of the Growler program.
(8) MitigationAlthough the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments for the Growler
program promised fewer noise impacts than those associated with the Prowler program,
the significant increase in noise complaints in San Juan County since the beginning of
the transition indicates that noise impacts have increased. Rather than ignoring the noise
impacts, the EIS must evaluate methods for mitigating them, including: (a) the
construction of a hush house or other facility to limit the noise that escapes NAS
Whidbey; (b) modifying training flight paths to avoid noise-sensitive areas; (c) flight paths
at higher elevations than currently experienced in some areas over the San Juan Islands;
(d) refraining from engaging afterburners in populated areas; and (e) advance notice to
citizens of Growler trainings. (9) Cumulative Impacts the EIS should evaluate the
impacts of the current proposal in conjunction with recent proposals to expand the
activities in the Navys Northwest Training Range Complex and the Northwest Training
and Testing proposal. Sincerely,(b)(6)
Friends of the San Juans
3393
(b)(6)
3394
Victoria, V8S 3L7

I live in Victoria, B.C. in Fairfield and find the noise from these planes unnerving. The
sound is what I imagine a large earthquake sounds like. Living in an earthquake zone I
don't want to get used to this sound for fear that if a real quake comes, I may not react. I
feel this is noise pollution and it certainly shouldn't cross borders.Industry can create
noise, but not in the night which is when we are hearing them lately. The noise is
frightening to my young children. The media today wrote an article on how upset we all
are.
(b)(6)
3395
Victoria BC, V8P5E9

I do appreciate what the US Navy is doing in defending democracy for us all. If there is
some noise associated with that - it is a small price to pay. Thank you!
(b)(6)
3396

The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments (EAs) are deficient in assessing the
human health consequences of the proposed expansion of the Growler fleet. San Juan
and Jefferson counties have low levels of background noise. But residents are routinely
subjected to blasts of noise from Growler overflights, training, and airfield operations that
result in startle reactions. This noise is perceived subconsciously by the human body as a
danger signal. The body reacts with fight or flight response with resultant nervous,
hormonal and vascular changes.The jet noise experienced is not unlike the noise of an
earthquake, a strong wind or a chimney fire. Research shows that humans do not
become accustomed to repeated noise at this level. Increasingly over the past several
years my husband and I have been startled by the near-deafening noise of Growler
planes not only when outdoors on our property or around the county, but even inside our
house. Visiting Whidbey Island to camp we were literally driven from Whidbey State Park
by the repetitive jet flights conducted into the late night. I experience anxiety and even
fright, with heart-racing, etc. when this occurs. My husband gets so angry I fear hell have
a heart attack. I also witness negative stress effects on my dog, birds, and other animals.
The EIS should address the health effects of startle reactions. Conduct independent
medical surveys on the impacted populations, including San Juan County. Mitigation
should be put in place for all Growler activity. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not
publish a schedule of training operations for Ault Field. As a consequence, residents
never know if a blast of noise is going to be a single 30- second event or the beginning of
3 hours of noise from training. This severely impacts quality of life, use of property and
has health consequences. Surveys show that loss of control over ones life is one of the
most disturbing effects of low level military over flights and/or sonic booms on rural
Americans. The EIS should address this issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should
(CCAs). San Juan and Jefferson county residents regularly experience Growler jet noise
between the hours of 8 pm and 12 midnight. During the summer the noise often
continues to 1 am. The indoor threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. San Juan County
residents noise journals show that indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field range
from 57 80 dBA. If the low frequency noise is measured the sound levels range from 77
100 dBC. Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Using the
not average sleep loss. Noise annoyance during the night increases noise annoyance for
the following 24 hours. Noise disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead to health
the Growler emits, is significantly disturbing even at low sound pressure levels. The EIS
San Juan, Jefferson, and Island counties should document the extent of this problem. An
hours should be developed and studied. On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely fly over
biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. The EIS should specifically address the
issue of Growler noise on children. Parents, teachers and children should be questioned
about behavioral responses to Growler noise. Mitigation should include shifting flight
patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. Thank you for the
opportunity to add my comments on health effects to the public record.
3396
(b)(6)
3397
Victoria, WA V8V 4A7

The noise level already is a distinct form of pollution, but adding to it will become
unbearable and have a significant effect on the peaceful enjoyment of our home and
surrounding areas in Victoria, BC, including all places facing the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and at most elevations in the Greater Victoria area. We ask that you not expand the
number of planes at the base, rather diminish its use.
(b)(6)
3398
Victoria,
The sound from these jets are disturbing to our peace in Victoria. I am opposed to the
current situation and definitely opposed to expanding the amount of jets. It sounds as if
we are about to have an earthquake each time one takes off/lands.
(b)(6)
3399
Pt. Townsend, WA 98368

I am writing to express my concerns around the increase of Growler aircraft and their
flight trainings over the Olympic Peninsula. We are are already too familiar with the Navy
as a neighbor and are subjected to its war-game activities on a regular basis already. The
Navy's claim that it needs the Whidbey Island (OLF) field to save money is a highly shaky
excuse for its increasing its empire in the area. The Navy already trains pilots on bases in
Wash., Oregon, Idaho and Nevada and has not made a case for the need for more
training here. It claims that it will save $5 million/year in fuel costs, but adding 36 jets is
hardly a fuel-saving event; these jets burn 1300 gallons per hour, which produces 12.5
metric tons of CO2/hour. That's 23% more than the average citizen produces annually
and greatly contributes to climate change. No analysis has been done on fuel savings
versus economic and health impacts of the people in the area and needs to be
addressed before these planes add to the already high CO2 and other pollutant levels.
Growler jets make noise far above human pain thresholds and have not been adequately
addressed in the "computer models." How about checking out the "real, on the ground"
noise levels? I am sure there are plenty of folks ready to take readings for you. There are
times in Port Townsend that the noise from the existing jets are sudden, loud and
frightening. Other times, it is the wearing, crazy-making rumbling/afterburner noise for
hours of the existing Growlers over my home. In wildlife and humans the effects from
loud noise include hearing loss, increased stress hormones, cardiovascular disease,
immune system compromise and psychosocial impacts -- similar to the effects of war on
the same species. Effects on endangered species have also not been adequately
documented by the Navy. Port Townsend is one of the few intact,historic seaports in
Washington whose economic survival depends upon visitors spending their money with
local merchants. I fear the negative economic effects of this noise pollution on this and
other towns with any increase in same. How has the EIS addressed this issue for PT and
other communities in the area? Is anyone doing a cultural resource assessment of the
effects? As an American, I am more and more distressed by the demonstrations of the
bloated Defense budgets and its constant reminder from local Growler noise, the endless
buildup for war with endless enemies, both real and imagined. Does anyone in the Navy
really care about us? Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3400
Pender Island, OR V0N 2M1

I wish to request that any scoping process include an impact statement on the effects of
the noise on the endangered orcas in the area and adequate protection to be put in place
for all existing programs to protect this delicate species.
(b)(6)
3401
Victoria, V8T3P5
Too loud to be so close to a city. Period. (b)(6)
BC
, Victoria
(b)(6)
3402
Victoria, WA V8N1Z9
I live in Victoria BC, Canada, and the noise from these airplanes/this equipment is very
loud and disruptive.
(b)(6)
3403

I live on Lopez island and find my blood pressure going up, as well as my anxiety and
tension, when I am being pounded by Growler jet engine noise and vibration. A good
example is the week of January 5-9, 2015. The noise comes at odd intervals, over and
over and over and over. I want the EIS to include studies of the effect of jet engine noise
(airport noise) on health. For example: Correia AW, Peters JL, Levy JI, Melly S, Dominici
F. 2013. Residential exposure to aircraft noise and hospital admissions for cardiovascular
diseases: multi-airport retrospective study. Bmj-British Medical Journal 347 Stansfeld S.
2013. Airport noise and cardiovascular disease. Bmj-British Medical Journal 347 Muenzel
T, Gori T, Babisch W, Basner M. 2014. Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise
exposure. European Heart Journal 35: 829-+ Roeoesli M, Mohler E, Frei P, Vienneau D.
2014. Noise-related sleep disturbances: Does gender matter? Noise & Health 16:
197-204 Senkayi SN, Sattler ML, Rowe N, Chen VCP. 2014. Investigation of an
association between childhood leukemia incidences and airports in Texas. Atmospheric
Pollution Research 5: 189-95
(b)(6)
3404

I live on Lopez Island, and am pounded by Growler jet noise. I want the EIS to include a
review of the comments made on the San Juan County Noise Reporting website. These
comments will provide a demonstration of the impact on the lives of residents of the San
Juan Islands.
(b)(6)
3405
, WY
I support you
(b)(6)
3406
Victoria, BC CANADA, WA V8S 4V6

We live in Victoria BC, Canada and find the noise pollution coming from aircraft
operations at NAS Whidbey Island excessive. Is there anything that can be done to
reduce the noise levels?
(b)(6)
3407

Analysis Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments (EAs) was
(Reference: Mestre, V., et. al,: Technical Support For Day/Night Average Sound Level
paragraph.) D. We understand that noise measurements and projections in the EAs
(b)(6)
3408

I live on San Juan Island, and I have found the noise and vibration from nearby "Growler"
flights to be frequently disturbing. At times, even on San Juan Island, vibration from the
flights has been strong enough to set off a car alarm. I recommend that training flights for
this class of plane should be conducted over sparsely populated areas such as China
Lake in California. I also suggest the following should be considered in the Environmental
Impact Study for the proposed operations: - The Navy should conduct continuous sound
measurements in the southern portion of San Juan County over a one-month period in
which a typical level of operations is conducted. - The EIS should consider the impacts of
low frequency noise as well as noise at higher frequencies. - The EIS should include
Startle Reaction, Loss of Control, Sleep Disturbance and Impacts on Children. - The EIS
should consider impacts on farm animals and wildlife. - The EIS should fully evaluate one
or more alternatives that base Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island, to
include the China Lake base. - The EIS should evaluate noise mitigation measures such
as minimizing flight routes over or near populated areas and flying above 3,000 feet;
Environmental Assessments. Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment.
(b)(6)
3409

Health Effects Related to Startle Reaction from Growler Training San Juan County has a
low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside). County residents are routinely exposed
90 114 dBA (outside) blasts of noise from Growler over flights and operations at Ault
Field resulting in startle reactions. This noise is perceived subconsciously by the human
body as a danger signal. The body reacts with fight or flight response with resultant
not become accustomed to repeated noise at this level. References: Kryter K:
address the health effects of Startle Reactions. Conduct medical surveys on the
Growler activity.
(b)(6)
3410

Health Effects Related to Loss of Control Residents of San Juan County experience
Growler jet noise at all times of the day and night. The noise ranges from 65 110 dBA
and 75 124 dBC (inside) and is the result of over flights, engine testing and training
operations. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island does not publish a schedule of training
low level military over flights and/or sonic booms on rural Americans. (Reference:
401-410, 1990.) Bargen R: Airspace Blues, Airspace, Gabbs, Nev, p 424, 1989. The EIS
Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
(b)(6)
3411

Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely fly over
(b)(6)
3412

Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance San Juan County residents regularly experience
(b)(6)
3413

Alternatives The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States: The alternatives include
alternatives ... . We believe that alternatives should not be dismissed just because they
(b)(6)
3414

(b)(6)
3415

Economic Impacts The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are
places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic growth ... which recognizes the
rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine and isolated nature of the islands." The quiet
and pristine nature of the islands with its marine protected areas, National Monuments
and National Historical Parks attracts organic agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists,
hikers, kayakers, sailors, summer residents and retirees. Some visitors who have
experienced the jet noise have stated that they will never return. Continuation of the
and reduce property values. Not including Alternatives that base additional jets at other
locations due to higher costs to the Navy does not consider the broader economic
(b)(6)
3416

(b)(6)
3417
Lopez, WA 98261
Hello, I'm not sure if my letter got sent If it did pls ingnore this one. Please have the EIS
afterburners in training flights. The EIS should address the health effects of Startle
Reactions. Medical surveys should be conducted on the impacted populations including
San Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. The EIS
Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). The EIS should specifically
shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. The EIS
developed and studied. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases
Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island. was inappropriate not to evaluate
noise mitigation. At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). The EIS should address economic impacts
throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. I have been
following the EIS process for the past year. It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012
My son and 20 of his Lopez Island school mates have signed a letter that states their
concern regarding the health impact on them. Please provide me with email address to
send a copy of this. Sincerely, (b)(6)
3417
(b)(6)
3418
Victoria, WA T5T 4C9

I am vehemently opposed to increasing any further noise pollution into our neighborhood.
The continuous rumbling is disruptive and annoying. Please count this as a NO vote.
(b)(6)
3419

6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV21/SS I live on the west side
of Lopez Island adjacent to our own small airport for 15 years. We bought property
expecting the one or 2 planes per hour in the summer and a few planes per day in the
winter, we also use the Seaplanes via Kenmore Air that are noisy only on take off until
they are gracefully aloft. Over-flights and blasts of noise and vibrations from Growlers
and operation at Ault Field are degrading many of the reasons we chose to live on the
island. It is a shake you to the core kind of vibration, it almost hurts. Everything must
stop, it is hard to concentrate, talk on the phone and even concentrate on the home
based business I operate. It is getting more and more nerve-wracking. I often take walks
on the south end of Lopez and am appalled with the noise at our new National
Monument. No peace to pause and reflect on our extreme beauty, and wildness of our
landscape, looking out over the Olympic National Park. I worry almost as much about the
Killer Whales and how can they possibly communicate to each other with the deep
rumbling of the Growler noise. When the jets are flying the noise is often so intense that
training, especially during working hours and sleeping hours. This severely impacts
quality of life, use of property and has health consequences. This loss of control over the
noise in life is one of the most disturbing effects of low level military. I have tried noise
cancelling headphones during the worst of the noise, but they dont cut out the vibration
of the entire house, deep into ones nerves. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M:
(FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). For future designs of any necessary
military planes used for low lever missions, including landing on aircraft carriers, the
ability to lower the noise of the engines, during practice and training should be a high
priority. My father was a pilot in the Navy on P2Vs and always explained in detail to me
as a young girl, how the Navy was prohibited from turning on the loud jets over populated
areas as he flew out of Sand Point and Whidbey Island bases. That was in the 50s and
60s. The population has exploded since then, and this should be one of the highest
priorities of the Navy training in and around one of the most natural and preserved
environment in the USA. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on
(CCA). g) F414 engines used on the Growlers. h) Notify citizens in advance of all Growler
Lopez island
3419
(b)(6)
3420
Victoria, V8V 4B2

We frequently hear and are disturbed by noises related to Growler aircraft in Victoria BC
Canada. The sounds can be heard from our residence in south Victoria as well as at the
University of Victoria. The sound is very alarming because it makes us think an
earthquake is starting (every time). We can hear the sound inside and outside of our
house and workplaces. The noises have become more frequent and louder lately
(although occurrence seems to vary by day and week). We would like the noise to be
decreased and not increased therefore would be very concerned about expansion of the
use of the airfield by an additional 36 aircraft.
(b)(6)
3421
Victoria, V8V 4B2

We frequently hear and are disturbed by noises related to Growler aircraft in Victoria BC
Canada. The sounds can be heard from our residence in south Victoria as well as at the
University of Victoria. The sound is very alarming because it makes us think an
earthquake is starting (every time). We can hear the sound inside and outside of our
house and workplaces. The noises have become more frequent and louder lately
(although occurrence seems to vary by day and week). We would like the noise to be
decreased and not increased therefore would be very concerned about expansion of the
use of the airfield by an additional 36 aircraft.
(b)(6)
3422
Victoria, British Columbia

, V8P 1R7
I feel for the residents of Puget Sound. I live 50 plus km away in another country and
those EA-18's rattle my windows and make my dog bark every time. Thought it was an
earthquake somewhere for the longest time. Can't imagine what people closer to the
base think knowing the navy wants to bring in 30+ more Growlers.
(b)(6)
3423
Victoria,
We can hear them in Canada, that's too loud!
(b)(6)
3424
Victoria BC Canada
Victoria, WA 98989
We can hear (noise pollution) and feel the activity of the Airfield Operations at all times of
the day and night. I go outside looking for the activity. Maybe Canadians can come down
and take a look once or twice a year.
(b)(6)
3425
Victoria, WY V8S 5B3

Practice flights, simulating aircraft carrier conditions, are far too noisy. I am very
concerned that there are consequences to our natural environment.
(b)(6)
3426
Victoria, WA V8N5S6
Either modify the Growler to eliminate the take-off noise, or shift training operations to the
USN base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where the unacceptable, offensive noise
would only annoy the USN staff stationed there.
(b)(6)
3427
Victoria, BC, V8R 3E1

While I appreciate that a Canadian citizen's opinion or feedback about US Naval Air
operations holds little weight, I do want you to know that I both hear and feel the flight
takeoffs from my yard and in my home here in Oak Bay. We have line of sight to Whidbey
Island and the sound carries quite clearly. I can only imagine what it must be like to
actually live on Whidbey.
(b)(6)
3428

Im a 20+ year resident of the South shoreline of Lopez Island. The change from Prowlers
to Growlers has definitely increased the apparent noise for my family and livestock
whether that increase be a decibel level or a product of low frequencies I dont know. I
expect that the DEIS will analyze the long term effects of the predicted average noise
level on humans, wildlife and livestock. But the average noise level is not what impacts
us the most it is the occasional short term noise peaks. I would request that the DEIS
analyze the long term effects of periodic peak noise levels on humans, wildlife and
livestock. And, of course, the DEIS should evaluate ways to mitigate the impacts of both
long-term and peak noise levels for humans, wildlife and livestock. It is apparent to me as
a resident of South Lopez that the noise level we experience varies dramatically with the
specific characteristics of a planes flight. For example we experience much greater noise
levels when a plane is flying with its landing gear lowered or if a plane is positioned such
that we are exposed to the rear of its engines. The DEIS should consider possible
changes in operations (flight paths, altitudes, approach directions) to mitigate the impact
of the greater noise levels associated with these situations, e.g. by spending less flight
time with landing gear extended or approaching and departing the field so the maximum
noise level is over water instead of land (wildlife considerations would need to be factored
in). Likewise, there appears to be a relationship between perceived noise on the ground
and atmospheric conditions. The DEIS should consider mitigating those increased noise
levels by changes in operations during relevant atmospheric conditions. During a recent
open house on Lopez Island I was given the impression that while average noise levels
would be mapped over a significant area there would only be specific locations at which
intermittent extreme noise levels would be estimated and analyzed. I would request that
areas on Lopez Island be evaluated for these intermittent peak levels specifically the
National Monument areas at Watmough Bay and Iceberg Point, the campgrounds at
Spencer Spit and Odlin Parks and the retail core of Lopez Village.
(b)(6)
3429

This EIS should conduct all analysis of issues and impacts, demonstratable and potential,
from proposed expansion of the Navy Growler fleet on Whidbey Island and the military
activities associated with that expansion. It should rightfully start with a fresh beginning
and should not rely on, or tier off of, the analyses and Records of Decision for the 2005
and 2012 nvironmental Assessments. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments
(EAs) are deficient in several areas, including a lack of adequate alternatives, mitigation
of negative impacts, and economic consequences to communities affected by the
proposed plan of action. Alternatives The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS states:
The alternatives include variations of the following factors: 1.Total number of aircraft to
be purchased 2.Number of aircraft assigned per squadron 3.Number of land-based
squadrons. 4.The distribution of aircraft operations at NAS Whidbey Island between Ault
Field and OLF Coupeville Thus no alternatives are offered that base the Growlers at a
Environmental Quality regulations requires that Agencies, including the US Navy shall
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives . The US
military controls vast areas of public lands for bases, airfields, ranges, etc. And yet the
Navys plan assumes Whidbey is the only location where Growlers can be based,
positing costs and convenience as justifying factors. I believe that alternatives other than
Whidbey, which would launch activities that would despoil the Olympic Peninsula and
significantly affect its communities, should be considered, and not be dismissed merely
because they are purportedly higher in cost or not as efficient. The EIS should fully
Whidbey Island. Mitigation In its EIS the Navy needs to disclose how it will implement all
feasible measures to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on citizens in
San Juan, Jefferson and Island counties, as well as Olympic National Park. The Council
on Environmental Quality instructs agencies preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) in regulation 1502, section 14 on Proposed Alternatives. This states, In
included in the proposed action or alternatives. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental
Assessments incorrectly determined that there was no adverse noise impact. Therefore it
in the Record of Decision (ROD) along with timelines for completion. a)Growler training
modified to minimize routes over populated areas to the greatest extent possible.
b)Growler training flights over populated areas should be conducted above 3,000 feet
elevation. c)Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget
Sound. d)A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used for noise
suppression during all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. e)The Navy should
test, acquire and deploy noise-reduction measures for the General Electric F414 engines
used on the Growlers. f)Notify citizens in advance of all Growler training operations at
either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP), Controlled Carrier
Approaches (CCAs). Economic Impacts The Northwest corner of Washington, including
the Olympic Peninsula and the islands to the east, support a pattern of economic growth
that recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine, and isolated nature of the
forests, waters, parks, and wildlife that make this region such a rare and special place.
People flock here from all over the world to experience this unique setting and to recreate
in innumerable ways and renew their spirits. The region boasts marine protected areas,
National Monuments, National Historical Parks, and Olympic National Park, as well many
state parks, which attract organic agriculture, lovers of nature, cyclists, hikers, kayakers,
sailors, summer residents and retirees. Unfortunately, some visitors who have
experienced the jet noise have stated that they will never return. Continuation of the
and reduce tourism revenues and property values, with negative consequences for
individuals, communities, businesses, and consequently, the tax base for counties and
the state. In not including Alternatives that base additional jets at other locations due to
higher costs, the Navy fails to consider the broader economic consequences for the
region. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom,
Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these
comments for the public record.
3429
(b)(6)
3430
victoria, v9e2a9
I find the 'rumbles' highly disturbing and unsettling. The frequency is also an increasing
concern. I would prefer if these loud aircraft would fly in a less populated area. Thank
you.
(b)(6)
3431

The scope of an honest Environmental Impact Statement on the addition of more Growler
EA-18G aircraft to the fleet at NAS Whidbey would include the cumulative effects of this
addition of planes and flights with the effects of placement and use of the emitters
planned for the West End of the Olympic Peninsula as well as the environmental impacts
of any surface ship or submarine involvement in the anticipated exercises. Why have
these very related and intertwined elements been treated separately, when the actual
effects on a real planet earth will obviously be cumulative?
3432
,
As a concerned citizen of the USA, I reject the increased expansion of any additional,
and as stated 36 EA 18G Growler jets to NASWI. The separation of Navy activities and
their processes; ground and air activities and comment periods is in direct conflict with
the 1998 Master Agreement between the Department of Defense and the United States
Department of Agriculture as well as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
requires all federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement whenever
they undertake any significant action and further stipulates that all activities that are
functionally related must be included. The Master Agreement also requires that the
Department of Defense must substantiate that lands under its administration are
unsuitable or unavailable. Since the Navy has already admitted through one Captain
Nortier that these jet and mobile emitter equipment used for warfare training are already
being used in a variety of locations for decades, it must stand that the aforementioned
requirement has been found that the DOD has in fact other suitable lands and locations
that are being used. The noise of the Growlers over the Olympic Peninsula have already
demonstrated a detriment to the health ofthe civilian population and would continue to
destroy the fragile ecosystem, protected wildlife in the area as well as the tourism and the
economy. These are all significant environmental and health impacts.
(b)(6)
3433
, WA 98368
My name is (b)(6)
WA. HAS THE NAVY CONSIDERED THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES TO
THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST? WHAT PLANS DOES THE NAVY HAVE TO
KEEP THE OLYMPICS PRISTINE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS? The Olympic
National Forest is home to a number of federally protected endangered species. Old
Growth national forest represents a symbiotic combination of flora and fauna that evolved
together over millennia. Disturbing even a small portion of that ecosystem can cause
unintended consequences. This unique biosphere is under assault from rapid climate
change, and dramatic changes are already underway. As an average citizen I am doing
my best to reduce my carbon footprint. Im horrified to see that a one hour Growler flight
puts out about 23% more than the annual CO2 emissions of a typical Washington state
citizen. One hour of a single EA-18G Growler flight is equivalent to driving a typical car
29,500 miles. This data comes from Chris Greacen, PhD. All of my personal efforts are
being negated. Perhaps the Navy could have fewer flights, use more flight simulators and
therefore, less fuel. I ask that the Navy consider using its considerable resources to
figuring out how to limit climate disruptions. Helping solve the carbon dioxide/climate
change debacle will keep citizens all over the planet far safer than Growler training ever
will. Thank you for your consideration. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3434
victoria, v9e2a9
The sound generated from your training operations is concerning to us, as it is an
unsettling noise in the evenings, and we are concerned that the frequency is likley to
increase with the increase in your fleet size. We are hoping that the noise from this might
be considered in this decision.
(b)(6)
3435

I live on Lopez Island having moved here eight years ago from San Francisco. The
contrast of the noise in the city compared to the quiet of this isolated rural community was
a welcomed change it was a key reason for relocating. Sadly the almost constant low
frequency ground rumble from Naval Air Station Whidbey and the shock of the loud F-18
Growler overflights has brought the noise of the city back into my life. The change from
before the Growlers started flying is profound and has dramatically degraded my and my
familys quality of life, and makes me question living on Lopez Island longer term. And to
that point, I am particularly concerned about the economic impacts of the Growlers and
the addition of more Growlers at NASW. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan
visitors and reduce property values. Moreover, I am the President of our local school
board,Lopez Island School District #144, a small K-12 school district with several
hundred students. I am particular concerned that the Growler noise and negative impact
on our environment could cause families and their students to leave our island or choose
in the future not to move to Lopez. The school district is the largest employer on our
island. While we have stable enrollment at this point, any significant decline in enrollment
could cause us to loose programs and staff positions. The EIS should address economic
impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. And in
particular, it should address the potential harm to the Lopez Island School Districts ability
to maintain viable enrollment levels, and any subsequent impact on school employment
levels.
(b)(6)
3436
Lopez, WA 98261
In the 2012 EA, Figure 3-4, Projected 2013 DNL Noise Contours for Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville indicates that San Juan County (SJC) is outside the affected area. This does
not reflect citizen experience. We experience Growler activity that is loud and disruptive.
Possible factors may include flights at lower elevation than assumed and ducting of jet
noise between water and clouds. It is good engineering practice to verify computer
simulations with actual measurements. Conduct continuous sound measurements in the
southern portion of SJC over a one-month period.
(b)(6)
3437
Lopez, WA 98261
(b)(6)
3438

a welcomed change it was a key reason for relocating. It is a key reasons families
choose to live and raise their children on Lopez Island. Sadly the almost constant low
Growler overflights has brought the noise of the city back into my life and disrupted the
lives of families and children across the island. I am the President of our local school
board: Lopez Island School District #144. To that point, I am particularly concerned about
the impact of Growler noise on our students and the children on our island in general.
Already Growlers are overflying the school grounds in the center of the island. Teachers
have reported disruption to classroom activities. Outdoor activities have been disrupted
by overflights. One of our evening board meetings in the school library was disrupted
when a loud overflight made it difficult to hear a board member participating on speaker
phone. As I understand research shows that children can be very distressed over military
jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror, panic, screaming, freezing in
place, palpitations, shaking, dizziness, bed wetting, sleep disturbances, nail biting,
anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. The EIS should specifically address the issue of
Growler noise on children. Parents, teachers and children should be questioned about
avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village. In addition, prohibiting flights over or
near Lopez Island during evening hours when students are studying at home and going
to bed for necessary sleep should be explored.
(b)(6)
3439

familys quality of life, and makes me question living on Lopez Island longer term. The
Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States: The alternatives include variations of the
following factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to be purchased 2. Number of aircraft
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives . I believe
efficient. The EIS should fully evaluate one or more alternatives that bases Growlers at a
location other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
3440

Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity.Reference: Lundberg U,
Frankenhaeuser M: Psychophysiological Reaction to Noise as Modified by Personal
Control over Noise Intensity. Biol Psychol, 6:51-59, 1978. Singer JE, Acri JB, Schaeffer
MH: Cognitive Changes from Noise Exposure. In Bergland B, Lindvall T (eds): Noise as a
Public Health Problem. New Advances in Noise Research (volume I of proceedings of the
5th international congress on noise as a public health problem, held in Stockholm, Aug.
(FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCAs).
(b)(6)
3441

On Lopez Island the Growlers routinely fly over our school in the middle of the island and
over Lopez Village where our Preschool and Childrens Center is located. Research
pressure. References: Goldman B: Sheshatshit, Labrador A Town without Hope. Can
Med Assoc J, 141:602-605,1989.1162 (b)(6) Page 13 of 23. Bartels K:
(b)(6)
3442

San Juan County residents regularly experience Growler jet noise between the hours of 8
pm and 12 midnight. During the summer the noise often continues to 1 am. The indoor
threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. San Juan County residents noise journals show
that indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field range from 57 80 dBA. If the low
bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Using the Day-Night Average (Ldn)
noise measure does not take into account that our bodies do not average sleep loss.
Noise annoyance during the night increases noise annoyance for the following 24 hours.
Noise disruptions and sleep disturbance can lead to health disorders and interfere with
convalescence from illness. Low frequency sound, such as the Growler emits, is
significantly disturbing even at low sound pressure levels. References: LeVere T, Morlock
G, Hart, F: Waking Performance Decrements Following Minimal Sleep Description: The
(b)(6)
3443

The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS States: The alternatives include variations of
the following factors: 1. Total number of aircraft to be purchased 2. Number of aircraft
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives ... . We
(b)(6)
3444

familys quality of life, and makes me question living on Lopez Island longer term.
paragraph. D. I understand that noise measurements and projections in the EAs assume
that afterburners are not in use. I further understand that afterburners are used at times
including takeoffs and FCLPs. Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should
3444
(b)(6)
3445

The noise level of the growlers is loud and disturbing to me. I am concerned not only for
the health of us human beings but for the mammals of the sea. From what I have read it
is harmful to the environment. It could also have an impact economically on the region.
We bought our home in the Islands not only for its beauty but also for quiet and peace. I
would suggest EIS study and/or do the following: A. Conduct continuous sound
Decision (ROD) to not use afterburners in training flights. The EIS should address the
health effects of Startle Reactions. Medical surveys should be conducted on the
Growler activity. The EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control. Mitigation should
(CCA). The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children.
School and Lopez Village. The EIS should address sleep disturbance. A survey of the
residents in the study area including San Juan County should document the extent of this
problem. An Alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice from Ault field between
2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. The EIS should fully evaluate
Island. At a minimum the following mitigation measures must be fully considered. All
with timelines for completion. a) Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island
populated areas, including the south end of Lopez Island, to the greatest extent possible.
b) Growler training flights over populated areas including San Juan County should be
above 3,000 feet elevation. c) Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights
over North Puget Sound. d) A Ground Run-up Enclosure or Hush House should be used
airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier
Approaches (CCA). The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan,
Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. There was insufficiency of the 2005 and
2012 Environmental Assessments. I have been following the EIS process for the past
year. It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were
deficient and incomplete. The Growlers were moved to NASWI without a full EIS and
without sufficient study of noise impacts, health consequences, plans for mitigation of
was considered a no significant impact area. Clearly this is not the case. This EIS
Records of Decision for the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments.
3445
(b)(6)
3446

We want the Navy to implement all feasible measures to reduce the noise impacts of
Growler training flights on citizens including San Juan County. In preparing an
(b)(6)
3447

The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states, "...the islands are places of peace....
We support a pattern of economic growth ... which recognizes the rural, residential, quiet,
Island Counties.
(b)(6)
3448

The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments (EAs) are deficient in the following
areas as noted in numerous comments. Analysis Human health consequences
Alternatives Mitigation Economic consequences This EIS should conduct all analysis
from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and Records of
(b)(6)
3449
Victoria, V8N 6J7

Hello, We recently moved within Victoria, BC Canada and were hearing this noise which
sounded like a large truck on our street. We have since found out that the noise is
coming from the Growlers landing on Whidbey Island. Our house has a view of San Juan
Islands which is lovely but the noise that is now coming is not so lovely. If we had known
of the noise factor we would not have selected this location for us to live. Our dog gets
quite nervous while the grumbling noise is in progress. The noise does ruin the peace of
the ocean view and does drown out the sound of waves flowing onto the shoreline. Our
nice peaceful location has been impaired by the sounds of the growlers. Concerned
Canadian Neighbour at (b)(6)
, Victoria, BC V8n 3V2. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3450
PortTownsend, WA 98368
I am the business owner of a camp store concession at Fort Flagler State Park on
Marrowstone Island across the water from Whidbey Island. I have heard several
complaints from campers last summer asking "what was all that noise last night?" and
commenting "I could hardly sleep". Campers come to our state park for the silence, it is of
economic value! Increased growler noise concerns me in that eco-tourism is an economy
we are nurturing here all over the Olympic Peninsula to offset losses from logging and
fishing that used to offer family wage jobs. Please examine the potential loss to our
eco-tourism business closely. Are there not alternative sites for the necessary pilot
training? Mountain Home perhaps? I respectfully want you to know that the economy on
the Olympic Peninsula is not robust,the Navy supports us with Bangor, Indian Island and
Bremerton and we are grateful of your presence. As a board member for Olycap Olympic
Community Action Programs for Clallam and Jefferson counties I am acutely cognizant of
the lack of family wage jobs and affordable housing. But back to the point, please help us
and do not increase your flights and especially not in our pristine silent Olympic
Peninsula. Respectfully, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3451
Berkeley, CA 94702
Children should not be subjected to the intolerable noise of Growlers. The videos online
that show children cringing and crying when Growlers fly over their Little League game
are clear evidence of harm. The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler
Lopez Island School and Lopez Village, and any other place where children, adults, or
animals reside. These Growler planes should never fly over populated areas below 3,000
feet calculated from the LAND not MSL.
(b)(6)
3452

The noise from the "Growlers" is deafening at times here on Lopez Island, most
assuredly detrimental to animals and people alike. I cannot understand why testing of
such an aircraft is being conducted in such a populous area. I would like to see scientific
testing done on the impact of the jet engine noise and residual fuel on the flora & fauna.
Furthermore, there are economic factors to be considered. This type of testing should be
conducted in the Pacific islands,not in the Pacific Northwest.
(b)(6)
3453

I am a 15-year resident of Lopez Island's south end. I work at a marine science
laboratory near the Washington State ferry terminal in Anacortes. The noise from
Whidbey NAS aircraft affects my work (makes it difficult to concentrate, disrupts
meetings) and my home life (prevents sleep, causes stress during the daytime). The
following is a comment pertaining to the EIS scoping process for the EA-18G Growler
Airfield at Whidbey NAS. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental
(EIS). A. In the 2012 EA, Figure 3-4, Projected 2013 DNL Noise Contours for Ault Field
and OLF Coupeville indicates that San Juan County (SJC) is outside the affected area.
This does not reflect citizen experience. We experience Growler activity that is loud and
frequency sounds have deleterious health impacts beyond annoyance as addressed in
other comments. Growler sound measurement with C Weighting, which includes most of
the low frequency spectrum, is expected to be 10 to 20 dB higher than A Weighting. We
believe that C Weighting would also indicate that the Growler events are louder than the
Prowler. A fundamental assumption in the EAs, that the Growler is quieter, is incorrect.
Include C Weighted sound measurements and analysis in the EIS. Reference: Low
Frequency Noise Study; Hodgdon, Atchley, Bernhard; April 2007
3453
(b)(6)
3454

Airfield at Whidbey NAS. Health Effects Related to Startle Reaction from Growler
Training San Juan County has a low background noise of 35 45 dBA (outside). County
residents are routinely exposed 90 114 dBA (outside) blasts of noise from Growler over
(b)(6)
3455

NO EA-18G FIGHTER JETS here on Whidbey. move the EA-18G to one of the multi
million acres base to not harm or endanger the civilian population. they are harming and
endangering the civilian population with as LOW as 200-300 feet AGL & LOUD noise of
150+ DB and Heavy Lead Cancer causing pollution and huge danger of a military fighter
jet crashing in to family homes and business with zero regard for the civilians HEALTH,
SAFETY and Quality of life. My Family has a 100 year old family farm that is being run
out of business due to this EA-18G. our U-pick customer run from the fields holding there
hands over the ears and they say they will not coming back until this dangerous aircraft
has gone from Whidbey island. NASWI is driving the civilian population of Whidbey island
with this EA-18G many business have closed due to the tourism drop as many tourist are
not coming to Whidbey island because of the NASWI harm and danger they are inflicting
on the civilian population. the Navy even refuse to fly over their own housing saying they
can not harm or endanger the military family's. the navy has classified the civilian
population not worth of our HEALTH, SAFETY or Quality of life. MOVE the EA-18G off of
Whidbey island.
(b)(6)
3456

Airfield at Whidbey NAS. Health Effects Related to Loss of Control Residents of San
(b)(6)
3457

Airfield at Whidbey NAS. Health Effects of Jet Noise on Children On Lopez Island the
Growlers routinely fly over our school in the middle of the island and over Lopez Village
where our Preschool and Childrens Center is located. Research shows that children can
be very distressed over military jet over flights. Behaviors in children may include: terror,
disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. References: Goldman
B: Sheshatshit, Labrador A Town without Hope. Can Med Assoc J,
shifting flight patterns to avoid the Lopez Island School and Lopez Village.
(b)(6)
3458

Airfield at Whidbey NAS. Health Effects Due to Sleep Disturbance San Juan County
residents regularly experience Growler jet noise between the hours of 8 pm and 12
midnight. During the summer the noise often continues to 1 am. The indoor threshold for
falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. San Juan County residents noise journals show that indoor
and ear protection does not help. Using the Day-Night Average (Ldn) noise measure
does not take into account that our bodies do not average sleep loss. Noise annoyance
during the night increases noise annoyance for the following 24 hours. Noise disruptions
and sleep disturbance can lead to health disorders and interfere with convalescence from
developed and studied.
(b)(6)
3459

Airfield at Whidbey NAS. 6. Alternatives The Proposed Action Statement in the EIS
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives . We believe that alternatives
should not be dismissed just because they are higher in cost or not as efficient. The EIS
than NAS Whidbey Island. Mitigation We want the Navy to implement all feasible
measures to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on citizens including San
included in the proposed action or alternatives. We believe that the 2005 and 2012
(b)(6)
3460

Airfield at Whidbey NAS. Economic Impacts The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan
(b)(6)
3461

I am the father of two small children, one with respiratory problems. We moved to Lopez
Island in part because of the clean air. EA16 Growlers burn prodigious amounts of jet fuel
(over 1300 gallons/hour according to the
DOD)(http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/2012-s
ars/13-F-0884_SARs_as_of_Dec_2012/Navy/EA-18G_December_2012_SAR.pdf). NAS
Jets have also been known to dump fuel over Lopez Island. The EIS should include
thorough investigation of the impacts of jet fuel combustion and jet fuel dumping on
humans as well as all marine and terrestrial flora and fauna in San Juan and Island
counties. In making these studies, the EIS should consider not only average exposure,
but also the impacts of short-term, higher-dose exposures.
(b)(6)
3462

Airfield at Whidbey NAS. Insufficiency of the 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments
The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments (EAs) are deficient in the following
areas as noted in numerous comments. Analysis Human health consequences
Alternatives Mitigation Economic consequences This EIS should conduct all analysis
from the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the analysis and Records of
(b)(6)
3463
Lopez, WA 98261
For the south end of Lopez Island, the impact analysis of the EIS should consider the
health impacts of the constant (nearly every waking hour) of the deafening noise on local
residents, and the wildlife of the area. Measurements for every location should be
verifiable, on site generated, and not made from models. It is well known, monitored for
24 years, that there are populations of peregrine falcons, and bald eagles on Lopez, as
well as 8 state listed species of plants (understanding that wildlife and plants are
interrelated.) These impacts should also be analyzed. There are numerous Wilderness
Areas in the area, islands managed by FWS, that have populations of protected and
endangered birds and marine animals habitating them. Impacts to these populations also
should be analyzed. The resident orca whale pod is listed as endangered. They have
suffered numerous deaths in this last year for undetermined reasons. The potential
impact of unnatural sounds on this population should be analyzed. The EIS' consistency
with the Wilderness Act criteria for management of the Fish and Wildlife islands for
"outstanding opportunities for solitude" and protection of natural areas should be
analyzed, as the Wilderness Area Congressional designation preexists the growler
presence. As EIS documents are supposed to allow for the potential of discovery, they
must offer a genuine range of alternatives. The no action alternative in this EIS is
proposed to represent the present status, with the increase to an impact that never had
analysis in this region. For this reason the law would support you do analysis that
considers a full range of possible alternatives, including an alternative that reduces the
number of overflights from existing levels, and one for no overflights, as well as
reasonable mitigation measures. This EIS should reflect on the health and welfare (point
1) of the residents of the San Juan Islands (as they have not been analyzed, w public
comment previously) but also This EIS should consider the impact to the existing
economy of the region, which is based on quiet recreation. Sailing, kayaking, hiking,
bicycling,agritourism, heritage tourism, and solo activities of self exploration - all best tied
to a peaceful setting. These activities are all negatively impacted by the growler sound,
which could seriously damage the economy of the area. Because 1 million visitors might
decide that the islands are no longer the place of retreat that they knew previously, the
socioeconomic impact to the San Juan Islands should also be analyzed.
(b)(6)
3464

since 1990 when my son and daughter were ages 3 and 1. They would run and hide or
start crying whenever they heard jet noise close by. All the reasons we have chosen to
Growlers. The Navy considers San Juan County (SJC) a no significant impact area.
This is clearly false. Analysis in the 2005 and 2012 Growler Environmental Assessments
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3465
victoria, WA 1234567
My family and I are very upset at the high level of noise that we are subjected to on a
daily basis as a result of your military planes at Widbey Island Airforce Base. It loud, low
level rumbling shakes our buildings, and has a deeply unsettling affect on both the people
and animals on our farm. I resent this form of noise pollution and can only image how
much worse it must be for people living closer to the base. I sincerely hope you will do
something so that your operations do not continue to disrupt our entire neighborhood.
(b)(6)
3466

I'm requesting that the NASWI conduct an independent and new EIS (noise study)using
real time and actual flights, and do not average this information. I do not want any EA
18G aircraft station at NASWI... they fly very low over my house at 150-300 feet agl
(below tree level, average tree 200 ft)at 120-150 db (on my decibel reader) way to loud.
My ears are being affected and my mulls are deaf. This activity is conducted about 24/7
with no respect to citizen in the area. This EA-18G aircraft has effected my business. My
berry business has been affect by this noise and pollution. Customers have been walking
out of my field saying "they will not be back as the plane noise hurts their ears." My bush
have been in this location since 1940. I have tried different hours and put a disclaimer on
website and signs to wear earplugs none of which lowers the db that these aircraft emit in
this area. This plane is driving me out of business. Please perform a new and
independent EIS.
(b)(6)
3467
victoria, WA 123456
My family and I are very upset at the high level of noise that we are subjected to on a
daily basis as a result of your military planes at Widbey Island Airforce Base. It loud, low
level rumbling shakes our buildings, and has a deeply unsettling affect on both the people
and animals on our farm. I resent this form of noise pollution and can only image how
much worse it must be for people living closer to the base. I sincerely hope you will do
something so that your operations do not continue to disrupt our entire neighborhood.
(b)(6)
3468

I am a Lopez Island Resident and am fully aware that within the San Juan Archipelago
there is the San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge which is one of six Refuges
administered by Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex. San Juan
Islands National Wildlife Refuge (SJINWR) consists of 83 rocks, reefs and islands
scattered throughout the San Juans and into the Strait of Juan De Fuca. Because Smith
and Minor islands and Matia island began as their own Refuges (Smith Island NWR
1937; Matia Island NWR 1937) and were only later consolidated under SJINWR,
purposes of specific islands vary. However, all of the lands within the Refuge share the
purpose of benefitting migratory birds; whether it be through providing refuge and
breeding ground for migratory birds, preserving winter sanctuary for native birds, or
facilitating management of migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. In
1976, the San Juan Wilderness was establish (P.L. 94-577) which added the purposes of
the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577) to all units of the Refuge except for Smith, Minor, Turn
and a portion of Matia Island. Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act defines wilderness as:
area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to
preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially
unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined
type of recreation; San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge is also within the
Cascadia Marine Trail, the San Juan Islands Scenic Byway, and provides opportunities
for overnight camping on Matia and Turn Islands Though small in size, the scattered
islands, rocks and reefs of the San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge are important
for marine life. An estimated 80% of the breeding population of black oystercatchers in
Washingtons inland marine waters nest on lands within the Refuge. Smith Island is home
to one of only two inland breeding colonies of tufted puffin and rhinoceros auklet in
Washington. The Refuge is also home to nesting Brandts cormorants and bald eagles.
Northern elephant seals and hundreds of harbor seals haul-out and care for their pups on
Refuge islands as well. Steller sea lions and California sea lions haul out on Refuge
islands as well. Likewise, I am fully aware as a resident of Lopez Island that the San Juan
Islands National Monument was designated by Presidential Proclamation in March 2013.
This designation tasks the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with managing the
approximately 1000 acres of public land to protect, conserve, and restore the resources
identified in the designating language, including the Coast Salish history, post-settlement
histories (especially Turn Point and Patos Island Light Stations), and the outstanding
natural setting and wildlife. In San Juan County, the Monument represents 3% of the land
in conservation status. Of the 111,360 acres of land in the county, approximately one
third (36,000 acres) are protected by federal, state, county, or nonprofit status, and
private/public easements. Additionally, the county has designated a marine protected
area for the region which prohibits jet skis, and is the only county in the USA with a Leave
No Trace resolution in their management plan. There are less than 16,000 islanders,
visitation to the islands hovers at around 1,000,000 annually. The natural and cultural
heritage, and quiet recreation (sailing, whale watching, hiking, kayaking, agritourism,
bicycling) are the economic base for the region. The stewardship for the islands,
extended through the tourism experience, is international, and additionally includes Coast
Salish and other First Nations. As a Lopez Island resident I am also fully aware that the
BLM lands on the south end of Lopez Island were designated Point Colville and Iceberg
Point Areas of Critical Environmental Concern prior to monument designation. The
management plan for this designation is the most restrictive that exists for public lands,
similar to stipulations for Wilderness Areas. There is no mechanized or motorized
recreational use, no fires or camping are allowed, nor groups of more than ten without a
special permit. All decisions for the landscape are made in consultation with seven Native
American Tribes. Adjacent to BLM managed lands on Lopez Island are designated U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service Wilderness Areas, county parks, nonprofit lands, and privately
owned lands all with the formal designations for conservation. In keeping with former
Secretary Salazars 2011 directive for the Department of the Interior agencies in the San
Juan Islands to be managing more efficiently and collaboratively, and supporting
community direction, this region has become a demonstration for multi- level
management. As combat veteran I appreciate that the Navy has broadened the analysis
area to include the San Juan Islands. The San Juan County Jet Aircraft Noise Reporting
website (http://sjcgis.org/aircraft-noise-reporting/) identifies the greatest reported
disturbance at the south end of Lopez Island. This area is one of my most favored
locations to recreate and find solitude. The Environmental Impact Statement needs to
address potential disturbance to birds and other wildlife, due to the increased frequency
of overflights and the overall quality of life for residents and visitors to this impacted area.
For these reasons, I request that the impact analysis address and disclose the impacts to
USFW Refuge resources, the San Juan Islands National Monument as well as
interrelated resources on other conservation lands, and on the socio-economic value of
those lands and resources within the region. I recommend that the analysis consider a
range of possible alternatives, including an alternative that reduces the number of
overflights from existing levels, as well as reasonable mitigation measures that might not
unduly hinder the Navys mission. I appreciate the opportunity for my voice to be heard.
3468
(b)(6)
3469

I live in the Davis Bay area of South Lopez and work a lot at home. We experience
Growler noise usually 4-5 days a week often starting at 8am and continuing until 9 -10
pm in the winter and 12 pm 1 am in the summer. One of the most difficult aspects for
me is the Startle effect. We get sporadic blasts of noise throughout the day ranging from
75 113 decibels. I can feel my adrenalin kick in with an accelerated heart rate. This
constant noise is definitely affecting my health. References: Kryter K: Physiological,
health effects of Startle Reactions. Medical surveys Quiet Skies Over San Juan County
9 06 December 2014 should be conducted on the impacted populations including San
Juan County. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity. Sincerely, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3470
Victoria, BC, Canada, AK V8R 5T4

The existing noise we experience in Victoria from the jets on Whidbey Island is already
excessive. I am amazed the Navy would propose a program to increase this. We live in
Canada, across many mikes of open water - which provide zero interference with the jet
noise. You need to erect some sort of deflectors at Whidbey to alter the trajectory of the
sound waves, or reduce the level of activity.
(b)(6)
3471

I live on the south west side of Lopez Island. Over-flights and blasts of noise and
vibrations from Growlers and operation at Ault Field are degrading many of the reasons
we chose to live on the island. When the jets are flying the noise is often so intense that
conversation cannot continue even when talking on the phone inside the house. Naval Air
and/or sonic booms on rural Americans. Some of my peers are suffering from severe
depression at this time. Reference: Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M: Psychophysiological
Reaction to Noise as Modified by Personal Control over Noise Intensity. Biol Psychol,
6:51-59, 1978. Singer JE, Acri JB, Schaeffer MH: Cognitive Changes from Noise
Exposure. In Bergland B, Lindvall T (eds): Noise as a Public Health Problem. New
Advances in Noise Research (volume I of proceedings of the 5th international congress
on noise as a public health problem, held in Stockholm, Aug. 21-25, 1988), Swedish
Council for Building Research, Stockholm, pp 401-410, 1990. Bargen R: Airspace Blues,
Airspace, Gabbs, Nev, p 424, 1989. The EIS should address the issue of Loss of Control.
Approaches (CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3472

Please keep NASWI open.
(b)(6)
3473
Victoria, BC
Victoria , BC V8Y 1R5, CA 98210
we do not like your noise one bit. We find your actions regarding consultation to be the
height of arrogance in not requesting comment from those in your immediate sound flight
path in Victoria, BC. KINDLY GIVE MORE CONSIDERATION TO YOUR
INTERNATIONAL NEIGHBOURS VIEWPOINTS ON AN ISSUE WHICH IMPACTS US
SIGNIFICANTLY! Even this form does not recognize Canadian input!
(b)(6)
3474

I support the men and women of NASWI.
(b)(6)
3475
Victoria, NJ
no more planes!!!
(b)(6)
3476

I am concerned with the noise levels at the school and pre-school on Lopez Island.
Growler traffic over my home is definitely affecting my life. What used to be a quiet
peaceful place to live now regularly is filled with the sounds of a war zone. Ear protection
does nothing. My windows vibrate. My body vibrates. I am concerned about the effects
on the children at our school and our preschool. Research shows that children can be
disturbances, nail biting, anxiety, and elevation of blood pressure. Quiet Skies Over San
Juan County 10 06 December 2014 References: Goldman B: Sheshatshit, Labrador A
Town without Hope. Can Med Assoc J, 141:602-605,1989.1162 (b)(6) Page 13 of 23.
Bartels K: Medizinische/psychosomatische Auswirkung von lieffluglarm. In Kinder und
Tiefflug. Dokumentation des Expertenforums zu den Auswirkungen des Tieffluglarms auf
Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp 18-22, 1989. Preuss S: Militarischer Jiefflug Und Seine
Psychischen Auswirkun gen Auf Kinder. In Kinder und Tiefflug. Dokumentation des
Expertenfonims zu den Auswirkungen des Tieffluglarms auf Kinder, Bonn, June 12, pp
3-8, 1989. The EIS should specifically address the issue of Growler noise on children.
School and Lopez Village. Sincerely, (b)(6)
LOpez Island
(b)(6)
3477

I have enjoyed living on Lopez Island for over 25 years. One of the wonders of living here
has been the quiet nights and being able to hear the waves, the sea lions, the wind and
all the night sounds. The Growlers have destroyed this. We regularly experience jet noise
between 8pm and 12 midnight. In the summer the noise can continue until 1am.
Research shows that the indoor threshold for falling asleep is 35-40 dBA. Our noise
journals show that indoor sound levels from FCLPs at Ault field range from 57 80 dBA.
If the low frequency noise is measured the sound levels range from 77 100 dBC.
Windows rattle, bodies vibrate and ear protection does not help. Its unthinkable that the
Navy considers San Juan County and Lopez Island a no significant impact noise area!
Averaging noise over a year is useless when youre trying to sleep. Our bodies do not
average sound. I feel that living with the sleep disruptions from the Growlers is affecting
my health. References: LeVere T, Morlock G, Hart, F: Waking Performance Decrements
Following Minimal Sleep Description: The Effects of Habituation during Sleep,
Physiological Psychology, 3:147-174, 1975. Kryter, Ran D., Analysis of Laboratory and
Field Data on Awakening from Noise, 1988. Lukas, J., Measures of Noise Level: Their
Relative Accuracy In Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise During
Sleep. EPA-600/1-77-0 10, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Feb. 1977. Griefahn, Barbara.
Research on Nose-Disturbed Sleep since 1973. In Proceedings of the Third International
Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. ASHA Report No. 10, April 1980.
Gniefahn, B Muzet, A: Noise Induced Sleep Disturbances and Their Effects on Health.
Institut Feur Arbeits und Sozialmedizin, Universitaet Mainz, West Germany and Centre
dEtudes Bioclimatiques due CNRS, France. The EIS should address sleep disturbance.
A survey of the residents in the study area including San Juan County should document
field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6) Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3478
lopez, WA 98261
On Lopez Island some people rely on rain water catchment for drinking water. An oil
sheen on the water in the stock tank I use to water my horses indicates that petroleum
has misted from above. Oil in the run-off in my pasture, and the occasional overwhelming
smell of kerosene in the open air, in fields forest and on the beach are further indications
of navy jets dumping fuel. With more jets there will be more fuel dumping. Naval
spokesmen have denied the dumping of fuel yet say also that the fuel is evaporated in
the sky. these fumes or mists of aviation fuel are entering our environment. What are the
long term health effects to animals including people from drinking water, and eating food
tainted by jet fuel? How can farmers and gardeners claim organic certification when
subject to fuel littering by the navy?
(b)(6)
3479

I have lived on Lopez Island for quite a few years. The jets from NASWI have not
bothered me much until this last year. Now I experience them all over the Island. If I want
to walk on our new National Monument lands at Iceberg Point they are the predominant
sound - not birds or waves or sea lions. If Im in the Village I experience them often with
their deafening vibrations. Even at our ferry landing at the north end their noise is not
uncommon. I recently visited a friend on Orcas Island. The noise was intrusive there. At
night when the island used to be quiet the hours of blasting and roaring can be heard
until late at night. I do not understand why this EIS does not include an Alternative that
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3480
Victoria, V8R6M8
The sound regularly wakes up our two children and creates stress for our animal. It is
loud enough to wake us up in the middle of the night, or leave us unable to carry on a
conversation out of doors.
(b)(6)
3481

As a long time San Juan County resident I am now planning trips away from the islands
to experience quiet. This is ridiculous. The Navy should be implementing immediate
noise mitigations to reduce the noise impacts of Growler training flights on citizens
throughout the region including San Juan County. In preparing an Environmental Impact
Island, to the greatest extent possible. Quiet Skies Over San Juan County 12 06
December 2014 b) Growler training flights over populated areas including San Juan
Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3482
Victoria, DC V8R4V9
When we were anchored off the Strait oF Georgia around Saturna Island this summer,
we heard the constant roar of sound pollution until very late at night. We live in a pristine,
natural area of the world, one of the few left and I found this constant rumble very
alarming to my spirit. We live in Victoria and the sound is getting louder and more
disturbing to me.
(b)(6)
3483

We moved here because of the beauty and the quiet. The Growlers are changing the
quality of life in San Juan County. We would never have bought property here if we had
experienced the intrusive noise from NASWI. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan
Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3484

To whom it may concern: I have lived in Port Townsend, Jefferson County, for 16 years. I
moved here in order to preserve my health in a quiet and peaceful environment. I am a
survivor of childhood polio and I live with post polio syndrome. The increased operations
of Navy Growlers over Port Townsend is a growing concern for me as these activities
have had direct adverse impact on my peace of mind and wellbeing. The following
remarks were prepared by my wife and I am in full agreement them: 1) Timeframe and 2)
Transparency with the Public. The public needs more time to learn about and weigh in on
the issues. The way in which the public is informed and given access to comment and
think about the interconnected issues and impacts needs to be opened up, made more
transparent and more holistic as we are impacted by the sum total of operations
changes and policy-setting precedents, not only by piecemeal changes. I agree with my
neighbor's assessment: "Breaking the growing Navy mission into separate environmental
statements is abusive to the public." It is unfair and misleading. I believe adding more
Growlers will degrade the quality of our regions life and is in excess of what is truly
necessary for national defense. Regarding the overlapping issues which the current
protocols continue to separate into distinct EIS One focuses on ships, one re impact on
marine mammals; another EA claims the entire western Olympic Peninsula for
electromagnetic training. One is on jet noise. As a citizenry affected by the overall impact
of all these issues we need to be able to access information, study, discuss and make
informed comment, and to be listened to respectfully about the issues and impacts as a
whole so that decisions made by the military truly take us into account. I object that the
ground based activities, covered in the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range EA,
were segmented from the draft EIS Im writing about today. The impacts of those
activities, and the impacts on the areas that the 36 new EA-18Gs will be flying over, as
well as the existing 82 Growler jets, should be covered in this EIS. 3) Significance of
impacts. In my experience there is a cumulative effect of impacts. The EA which declares
increasing military jet noise is "insignificant" is in clear disregard for my own and many
of my neighbors experience. Insignificant to whom? And over what length of time via
repeated exposure? WITHOUT ANY ADDITION IN THE CURRENT NUMBER OF
GROWLERS WE ALREADY HAVE CAUSE FOR GREAT CONCERN regarding
diminishment of individual and collective! HEALTH and negative impact on QUALITY
OF LIFE, sleep disturbance etc in our region, that are being caused directly by activity of
the existing fleet of Growler jets. 4) Premature Action. It is unwise, unjust and
economically irresponsible to consider adding jets when current impacts are not yet
known, actual on-the-ground citizen's experience has not yet been adequately quantified.
As citizens, we are impacted NOW. SO much is UNKNOWN and not QUANTIFIABLE
regarding what kind of impacts an increase in both number of jets, noise and frequency of
operations plus the additional planned growler-related activities on the ground will
cause. (As I understand it the ground operations plans are at least in part justifying the
so-called need for the additional jets). But FIRST THINGS FIRST: Slow down new
decisions and spending and assess CURRENT IMPACTS before moving forward. 5) EIS
Methodology needs improvement. New measurement methods are needed. Extent of
what is measured needs to be expanded. The current methodology of determining sound
impact on humans through averaging, using measuring techniques that dont include
actual measurements of airplanes in flight including the planes afterburners hides the
planes real impacts on humans!!!! Sound measurement and analysis in the EIS should
include afterburners. The 2005 and 2012 Environmental Assessments incorrectly
determined that there was no adverse noise impact. This is just not so. ASK THE
PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE WHO ARE BEING ADVERSELY IMPACTED NOW, at
current activity levels. Low frequency sounds impact humans and the EIS should
document the projected annual number of events that exceed 60 dB SEL and Lmax in
5dB increments throughout the impacted areas including San Juan, Jefferson and
Clallam counties. . The EIS should also address sleep disturbance and inquire/measure
for other kinds of physical responses such as dizziness, nausea, nervousness/anxiety
and loss of appetite (these are things Ive personally experienced in response to
flyovers). A survey of the residents in the impacted area should document the extent of
this problem. [if !supportLineBreakNewLine] [endif] 6) Mitigation of impacts.
Improvements in technology needed. Explore actions that can be taken now, prior to any
increase in fleet. The Growler aircraft should be made to be quieter, as commercial jets
have been. Per my conversations at Fort Worden, EVEN THOSE OFFICERS
STATIONED AT NAS AGREE THAT THAT THE AIRCRAFT NOISE CAN BE
PROBLEMATIC, and IMPACTS THEM. Mitigation of impact, such as that being
requested by San Juan County residents may become required in Jefferson and Clallam
Counties as well. Jet aircraft can deafen people, create health disorders and interfere
with convalescence from illness. An alternative that removes FCLP and CCA practice
from Ault field between 2000 and 0800 hours should be developed and studied. A
all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. Test, acquire and deploy noise reduction
measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. Growler training
flight paths from NAS Whidbey should be modified to minimize routes over the south end
of Lopez Island, Port Townsend, Port Angeles, and Forks. Growler training flights over
populated areas should be above 3,000 feet elevation. Afterburners should not be used
on Growler training flights. THESE THINGS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED NOW at Current
activity levels, before any new jets are brought into operation. 7) Economic impact
Local impact should be seriously considered vis a vis positive economic impact to those
who profitting from Growler sales! I believe that the increased noise of the Growler
squadron will damage the economy of the San Juans, Jefferson, Whidbey and Clallam.
Roaring fleets of planes practicing for many hours a day- late into the night destroys the
tranquility and quality of life of the people who live here, who come to visit. There are
other alternatives and they must be considered. The Navy has already created what is for
many citizens living near the Coupeville OLF a self-described "nightmare." The purchase
of additional growlers and the phasing out of using Mountain Home for training will cause
an increase in frequent jet noise flying over Port Townsend. If PT and PA experience
what Lopez and Whidbey residents subject to low altitude overflights have, our peace of
mind, our childrens health, the health of the ecology of which we are a part will all suffer.
Increasing flight noise and defense presence in both populated and less populated areas
will discourage visitors and tourism and reduce property values throughout the regions
impacted. The EIS should address economic impacts throughout San Juan, Whatcom,
Skagit, Jefferson and Island Counties. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental
Quality regulations requires that Agencies shall Rigorously explore and objectively
evaluate all reasonable alternatives. The EIS should rigorously evaluate one or more
alternatives for basing Growlers at a location other than NAS Whidbey Island before
3484
any additional jets are brought in. 8) Consider Future Generations. Finally, the will of the
people of this region should be heeded. The custom of native people to consider the next
seven generations should be heeded as well. Perhaps a public referendum of some kind
could demonstrate that the majority of San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Jefferson, Clallam
and Island County citizens dont want the planes to be purchased. (In my view there are
much better, essential uses for those funds to serve human needs and infrastructure
needs.) The fuel consumption of additional jets threatens the ecology, and moreover their
use in training destroys our tranquility. Some of my neighbors are seriously concerned
that increasing the number of navy jets and operations is more likely to incite rather
than deter military conflict with nations capable of threatening a nuclear war.
Unfortunately, many in Congress, and in the defense business, see war as an economic
necessity. It doesn't have to be this way. We live in a democracy where every person's
voice deserves to be heard, where every life human and all the species that are also
impacted by Navy operations on land, air and in our precious seas deserves to be
honored and heeded when decisions that effect us all are made. In the name of our
children and the wonderful inspiring majesty of the Olympic Peninsula I say no to more
growlers. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely and respectfully, (b)(6)
3484
(b)(6)
3485
Pender Island, BC, CANADA, V0N 2M1

Please conduct a noise impact study and set protocols in place for protection of our
ocean marine life. Protect and respect the wales of the Salish Sea today. Thank you. (b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
3486

I have been trying to stay close to the information released about the EIS process for the
past year. It appears that both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were
deficient and incomplete. The Growlers were moved to NASWI without a full EIS and
without sufficient study of noise impacts, health consequences, plans for mitigation of
was considered a no significant impact area. Clearly this is not the case. Quiet Skies
Over San Juan County 13 06 December 2014 This EIS should conduct all analysis from
the beginning and should not rely on, or tier off of, the Records of Decision for the 2005
and 2012 Environmental Assessments. Sincerely, (b)(6)
Lopez Island
(b)(6)
3487

I have lived in southern half of Lopez Island with my family for 22 years, and the powerful
effect of Growler flyovers has become far more constant than occasional for those of us
who spend any time outdoors (or like our animals, spend all our time outdoors). The EIS
should address the effects of 'Startle Reactions. With San Juan Co. background noise at
about 35-45 dba (outside) and Growler noise at about 90-114 dba (outside), it is clear
that our bodies are being shocked by excessive vibrations on a very regular basis. Our
bodies react with nervous, hormonal, and vascular changes to which we do not become
accustomed. I have found myself standing outside paralyzed by a particularly low flying
Growler, unable to move even though my mind understood what was happening,
because my body reacted strongly and independently of my mind. The EIS should
conduct medical surveys on the populations impacted by Growler noise, including San
Juan Co.. Mitigation should be put in place for all Growler activity.
(b)(6)
3488
lopez, WA 98261
NAS Whidbey has a large area of pavement and roofs where rain water once penetrated
the ground to become ground water. Now all that water runs off into the sea instead of
recharging ground water or perking through in a slow lasting manor to be used to sustain
life on earth. How is the navy going to insure that ground water resources are
safeguarded?
(b)(6)
3489
Seattle, WA 98103
Im writing to urge you to broaden the scope of your upcoming EIS on the proposed
expansion of Growler operations at Whidbey Island. I live in Seattle, and spend time on
the Olympic Peninsula for the peace and quiet, and the beautiful natural setting. This is
very important to me as a retreat from the busy, noisy, crowded city. The national
importance of this natural area is demonstrated by the establishment of a National Park,
National Marine Sanctuary, many State Parks, and the National Forest. It is home to
endangered and threatened species. It is important for wildlife and for people. The
analysis of effects of the activities must take into account the purposes of and guidelines
for our protected lands and species. Im aware of two other related NEPA processes; the
EA regarding the Electronic Warfare Range (EWR) in the National Forest and the Draft
Supplement to the Draft EIS for the Northwest Training and Testing for sea-based
activity. With this segmentation of the analysis it appears a major issue will not be
addressed, which is the increased flights of the Growler aircraft across the Northern
Olympic Peninsula and the Strait of Juan de Fuca to reach the EWR. These two activities
are clearly related. I was told at the Growler scoping meeting in Port Townsend that travel
to the EWR couldnt be addressed in this EIS because aircraft from bases other than
Whidbey Island will also use the planned EWR. Nonetheless, it is clear that Whidbey
aircraft will train at the Electronic Warfare Range, so the transit between the two areas
must be addressed. This is particularly important because of the environmentally
sensitive, high-quality areas mentioned above. The EIS must cover, among other issues,
the impacts of noise and other pollution, and the effect of these activities on the natural
resources and on the economic base of this area, much of which depends on tourists.
The EIS must also include the alternative of stationing Growlers at bases other than
Whidbey Island. That is clearly a reasonable alternative, especially considering the
environmental issues raised in this geographical area. The EAs prepared in 2005 and
2012 are inadequate. This NEPA process must incorporate the most current information
and perform a broad analysis, and not rely on the earlier documents. Finally the
document must fully consider available mitigation measures. Thank you for your
consideration, I look forward to the DEIS.
(b)(6)
3490
North Vancouver, OR V7h2y6
(b)(6)
3491

I have lived on the southern end of Lopez Island for 22 years with my family. Over time,
we have become much more impacted by Growler noise, particularly in that it is
impossible to predict when noise will be prohibitive to planned activities, sleeping, or even
talking to one another outdoors. This seriously undermines one's feeling of security and
control in one's most intimate surroundings. The EIS should address the issue of Loss of
Control. Mitigations should include notifying citizens in advance of all training operations
at either airfield including Field Carrier Landing Practice and Controlled Carrier
Approaches.
(b)(6)
3492

To reiterate I live on the southern end of Lopez Island MacArdle Bay is my home site I
hear all planes you fly and have since December 3rd. The direct impact at the levels of
flight are too low - I am absorbing the shock breathing in the dropped fuel my face and
eyes are swollen. The height is not regulated with the potency of your aircraft- The birds
here which were many are not exhibiting their routine stay or habits The Navy should be
Therefore it was inappropriate not to evaluate noise mitigation. At a minimum the
Growler training flight paths from NAS Whibey Island (map on page 11 of the scoping
booklet) should be modified to minimize routes over populated areas, including the south
end of Lopez Island, to the greatest extent possible. Growler training flights over
populated areas including San Juan County should be above 3,000 feet elevation.
Afterburners should not be used on Growler training flights over North Puget Sound. A
all Growler training engine run-ups and testing. Test, acquire and deploy noise
reduction measures for the General Electric F414 engines used on the Growlers. Notify
Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Controlled Carrier Approaches (CCA). How to
implore the humanity into the studies to meet your and our needs Sincerely (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3493
,
I have spent happy peaceful times with friends on Lopez Island in the past. All that is
nothing but a memory now, as the horrible Growler noise has destroyed the precious
peace and quiet of the islands. This EIS must include an Alternative that would base
Growlers somewhere other than NASWI. Section 1500.14 of the Council on
Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
3494

My property was in the value of millions- I negotiated the purchase under extreme serious
circumstances. To assess value today two years later and the pending economic outlook
will dramatically effect every family here whether all islanders hear your flights or not The
eventual outcome will destroy all lives. I know this A vital system of life retreat retirement
and sanctuary is worthy of your studies Please Patricia R. Cummings The EIS should
Counties.
(b)(6)
3495

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island for 22 years with my husband and children.
I have also worked in Lopez Village for that same amount of time. From the time my
children were quite small, they objected to jets flying over because they were "too noisy",
made the cats skitter, and made the horses jumpy. Now the flights are noisier and far
more frequent, and fly further north, encompassing both the area over Lopez School in
the center of the island and the Lopez Preschool in the Village. Children are greatly
disturbed by the noise itself, and I have seen children become quite distraught when a
well meaning adult explained exactly what the jets were doing. Practicing to harm others,
no matter how far away they may be, does not strike a child as right, nor does it make
them feel more secure. As flights become more constant, the responses of confusion and
fear do not even have time to subside before the next flight is upon them. The EIS should
specifically address affects on children. Parents, teachers, and children should be
questioned about behavioral responses to Growler noise. Mitigations should include
shifting flight patterns to avoid Lopez School and Village.
(b)(6)
3496

Finally to raise any more awareness the studies are not prudent to meet the standards for
the proximity to these communities - You should not be role modeling acts of war nor
God on us I say this with dignity and truth Sincerely Patricia R. Cummings It appears that
both the 2005 and the 2012 Environmental Assessments were deficient and incomplete.
The Growlers were moved to NASWI without a full EIS and without sufficient study of
noise impacts, health consequences, plans for mitigation of noise from the Growlers, and
(b)(6)
3497

I am deeply concerned about an increase in the amount of Growlers, the increase in the
number of days and hours I and my community will be subjected to the noise and
pollution. I find that when one of those Growlers goes over my home, the school I work at
or my church, I have an increase in anxiety before I even hear the plane. Something
about the low loud noise triggers my PTSD. On nights when it wakes me up - I find it hard
to go back to sleep. I am also concerned about the effect of this noise on the quiet west
coast places that I do to to relax. I feel these beautiful places are being taken from me. I
also question the effect of the fuel dumps on my community and the natural environment
of the Olympic Peninsula. Please don't destroy my home, my community and this very
special natural environment.
(b)(6)
3498

I have lived with my family on the south end of Lopez for 22 years. Each member of my
family has experienced waking up suddenly, terrified, by a Growler flying overhead--most
of us have had this experience many times. I have also experienced insomnia and poor
sleep countless times as a result of the powerful noise of a Growler disrupting what would
otherwise be a very quiet night. The EIS should address sleep disturbance, especially
long term sleep disturbance. Residents in the survey area including San Juan Co. should
be surveyed to establish the extent of this problem. An alternative that removes FCLP
and CCA practice from Ault field between the hours of 2000 and 0800 hours should be
developed and studied.
(b)(6)
3499

I have lived on Lopez Island since 1995. Prior to 2013, jet noise from Whidbey Naval Air
Station was only an occasional annoyance. Starting last year, the noise from the new
Growlers has become a constant part of my daily life.This week, January 26 through
today, the noise reached a crescendo. The rumbling starts between 9:30 and 10:00 am,
rises and falls throughout the day, vibrating my windows, then my walls. It catches my
attention when it starts, and it starts several times an hour. Sometimes it builds slowly,
sometimes it's immediately very loud, sometimes it almost fading away before it builds
again. I find it nerve wracking. I cannot believe that anyone who has actually lived with
this sound can dismiss the impact of it, so I ask you to actually measure it on Lopez, it's
frequency, loudness and duration.
(b)(6)
3500
Victoria, BC V8R 1G2

Victoria, WA 10101
The noise is becoming an increasing concern for many residents of Oak Bay. Can the
flights paths be altered to decrease the noise impact here in Canada. Your consideration
would be appreciated. Respectfully submitted. (b)(6)
, Oak Bay BC, Canada
(b)(6)
3501
victoria, British Columbia , WA v8n3z9

thank you for the opportunity to comment. I live 1000ft from the water in Victoria, but a
much longer distance (2miles) over land from a direct line of sight to Widbey Island. I can
tell you that when there are planes taking off at the base, the noise is remarkable loud
and disruptive. I understand the need for drills etc, but a substantial increase as planned
is not tolerable. Please reconsider how these flights are planned, scheduled and the
volume of such flights so as to minimize the noise for your neighbours across the water.
Sincerely, David Attwell. Ps: there is no selection for province, only state so I selected
Washington.
(b)(6)
3502

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island for 22 years with my family. Over this period
of time we have gone from having occasional fly-overs, which were sometimes annoying,
to having near constant fly-overs, which have a cumulative effect that is highly disruptive
and undermines health and well being in very significant ways. Certainly it is easier and
economically efficient for the Navy to continue to add flights to an already existing
location, but it is pre-emptively burdensome and harmful to local populations to subject
them to the additional damaging noise that results from adding so many more flights on a
routine basis. Section 1500.14 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations
requires that agencies shall "(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives...." The EIS should fully evaluate alternatives that base the
Growlers at locations other than NAS Whidbey Island.
(b)(6)
3503
Sequim, WA 98382
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to a second proposal by the US Navy to increase
and change the way the Olympic Peninsula is used for warfare training. I would have
appreciated the opportunity to comment on the Navy's Pacific Northwest Electronic
Warfare Range EA, but unfortunately, the residents of the Olympic Peninsula were not
informed of this proposed action and were therefore denied our right to comment. The
Navy's choice in separating their actions into four distinct processes has made it difficult
to have questions answered. When the Navy held an informational meeting in Port
Angeles they refused to answer questions outside of their request for a Special Use
Permit and have not returned to discuss the increase in the number of Growlers or
Changes to the EIS. Certainly the increase in Growlers will increase hours they will be
flying overhead interfering with the quality of life for residents and tourists. The Olympic
Peninsula has been experiencing a growth in tourism with people visiting from throughout
the world, in part because it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and International
Biosphere Reserve. Increasing the number of Growlers roaring low overhead jeopardizes
the environment that allowed this designation. There are very few, if any large national
parks and wilderness areas in the United States, especially near a large urban setting,
where the populace can still experience peace and quiet. It is appalling and shameful that
the US Navy wants to destroy what small area of tranquility we have left. Where is the
consideration of the effect the additional pollution and noise has on the health of our
residents? Why can't more of the training be done in simulators? Why isn't the training
done over the Hanford Site and the Yakima Firing Range? Why aren't these planes flying
over the sparsely populated desert areas easily accessible from Fallon NAS or Mountain
Home? Why is it that residents of the Olympic Peninsula feel like we are under attack by
the US Navy? Please follow the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act and at the very
least prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you for the opportunity to
submit comments.
(b)(6)
3504

The scoping session regarding the EIS for expanded Growler operations revealed the
unreasonably limited scope of the process proposed by the Navy. The impacts of Growler
operations clearly have impacts over the entire Olympic Peninsula not just near NAS
Whidbey. Data and studies in previous assessments are inadequate to address these
impacts, and the public process used in previous EAs and EISs seems to have been
poorly advertised providing inadequate opportuntuty for public input. I want the entire
Growler training program and the expansion of Growler activity to be fully re-evaluated in
order to consider the overall impacts, economic, natural environment, human health, and
probably many others. The Navy's piecemeal approach cannot sufficiently assess these
large-scale impacts and, frankly, suggesting that it does is dishonest. As a former Navy
officer, I understand the importance of training. I feel, however, that the Navy must
conduct a genuine analysis of the totality of Growler operations and, as part of this
analysis, consider alternate training locations that will not have the serious negative
consequences that current activities have on the Olympic Peninsula and that will be
further exacerbated by proposed expanded training activies and the increased size of the
Growler inventory. Thank you for considering my comments.
(b)(6)
3505

The noise from the Growlers has changed the nature of our community. The intermittent
background rumbling interrupts conversations on the streets; the louder blasts make
outdoor conversations very difficult.One of the first questions from guests is "what's that
noise?" We're planning an outdoor wedding for our daughter this fall, but I'm feeling very
anxious about how loud the growlers will be then. Please help us live with less anxiety by
mitigating the noise and keeping it to a predictable publicized schedule. We are
neighbors of the Air Station, not incidental damage.
(b)(6)
3506

"The segmented fragmentary approach taken by the NAVY in this multipart EIS provides
a head on challenge to the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that
for the past 50 years has required disclosure of the entire process, and required public
involvement in the processes that federal agencies use to make decisions that are likely
to affect the environment. Not just the trees and the streams and the birds and bugs,
NEPA applies to the impacts of actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment" 40 C.F.R. 1508.14 (1997). 1. On the Fragmentation and segmentation
temporal disconnect of the environmental review what is in fact a single larger project
NEPA teaches, and the courts agree, that all of a projects components that are actions
that are linked economically and by other considerations to the degree that one cannot
exist without the other must be considered in a single EIS. See Fritiofson v. Alexander
772 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1985 ) in which the court makes a distinction between the
requirement to analyze cumulative actions and the requirement for an analysis of
cumulative impacts. Specifically, with respect to cumulative actions, the court noted that
CEQ scoping regulations require connected, cumulative, and similar actions to be
considered together in the same EIS--where proposals up for decision are functionally or
economically related, those proposals must be considered in one EIS. "If proceeding with
one project will, because of functional or economic dependence, foreclose options or
irretrievably commit resources to future projects, the environmental consequences of the
projects should be evaluated together. This means that even if one or more of the
actions that are components of a larger project might be considered insignificant in the
absence of the others, they must be considered together in scoping. In the maps
provided to the public, many of the training flights from NAS WI simply go off the map
and disappear, but the planes and their impacts do not simply disappear. And in the EA
for the electronic warfare training on USFS lands, the impacts of these planes are not
discussed, but the impacts of the truck mounted EM transmitter stations, are discussed.
But these truck mounted EM transmitters have no purpose, absent the F/A-18 Growler
planes from NAS WI. Therefore, the impacts of both the training missions and their
ground-based components, conspicuously absent from the scoping documents must be
addressed in the overall EIS, and the noise impacts and other impacts from the training
flights over or in close proximity to National Park lands and designated Wilderness Areas
must be addressed in the EIS as well. While NEPA is addressed primarily to "physical
effects," the term "human environment" goes beyond impacts on earth, air and water.
The CEQ regulations provide a very broad definition of the term "human environment,"
which encompasses impacts on the quality of urban life. The word "affecting" in the key
phrase "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" is defined by the
CEQ to mean "will or may have an effect on." "Effects" not only include direct impacts of
an action, but also indirect (or secondary) impacts -- those which are later in time or
farther removed in distance from the proposal, but which nevertheless are reasonably
attributable to it and reasonably foreseeable in time." See Metropolitan Edison Co. v.
People Against Nuclear Energy (Metropolitan Edison), 460 U.S. 766, 772-73 (l983), 40
C.F.R. 1508.14 (1997)., Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied,
412 U.S. 908 (1973)., 40 C.F.R. 1508.3 (1996). Sierra Club v. Marsh (Sierra Club I),
769 F.2d 868 (1st Cir. 1985), and 40 C.F.R. 1508.8 2. On the disconnect between the
computer model used to predict noise impacts to date and technical definition of noise
impacts and the requirements of NEPA The NAVY admits that the noise contour of the
Growlers will be different from the Prowlers they replace and that it will in fact shake
windows and rattle stuff inside peoples' houses - and irritate them - but that a Growler is
not actually "louder" than a Prowler in a very narrowly defined technical sense, based on
a computer model that has been found to be contradictory to human experience of noise
in other bases were the Growler's F/A-18 airframes have been deployed, and yet states
that there will be no significant impact as a result of the change, based on predictions
from DoD NOISEMAP and day night averaged noise levels (DBL). That disconnect
between public's experience and computer model's prediction indicates that the NAVY's
noise impact analysis provided in Section 3.1.1 of the earlier EIS segment is NOT what
NEPA calls for. Because the noise contour of the Growlers on takeoff and landing is
admittedly different from the Prowlers than the planes it replaces - by as much as 11db
louder @ 50 Hz under some circumstances - still the model claims that the new planes
are not "louder" in a very narrowly defined technical sense, and then on the basis of a
computer model (that is NOT mapping well to the human experience anywhere, not here,
not in Key West, not in Virginia Beach) they have determined no significant impact of the
change, but that analysis is NOT what NEPA calls for, and therefore this issue is not yet
closed and must still be discussed in the EIS. The NAVY states: "Noise is generally
described as unwanted sound. A sound is regarded as noise when it interferes with
normal activities such as sleep or conversation, or when it is subjectively judged to be
annoying. " The NAVY Table 7 of SPL in Wyle (2012) shows a reduction, not an 11 db
increase resulting from shift from Prowler to Growler, and shows offshore SPL of 133 db
for Prowler on departure. Add 11 db to 133 db for 144 db. +6 db = DOUBLES the energy
of the noise and +11 db nearly doubles noise energy twice. Noise energy maps very
closely to real-time human physiological response, i.e. adrenal and neuromotor
responses to noise, shaking, vibration, etc. and when an average-based model derived
from isolated measurements (DNL) deviates substantially from human response, and
existing buildings shake and windows rattle, it is the model rather than the humans or
their structures and dwellings that need to be adjusted until the models predictions are in
closer agreement with perceptions, because impacts are the result of subjective human
experiences, and reflect actual physiological factors, not models. When the hypothesis
does not match the facts, it is the hypothesis, as expressed by the model, that should
yield. This EIS should therefore address noise in a way that demonstrably maps to
human experience and address the economic impacts resulting from nuisance noise due
to training exercises, engine maintenance runups and low elevation overflights in all the
areas where training missions from NAS WI will be flown, including the EW training
missions over lands manged by National Park and USFS. In Dept of Transportation v.
Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004), the Supreme Court noted that NEPA requires a
reasonably close causal relationship between the environmental effect and the alleged
cause, and analogized the determination of whether an environmental effect is caused
by an agency action to the doctrine of proximate cause in tort law. Id. at 767; see also
City of Shoreacres v. Waterworth, 420 F.3d 440, 452 (5th Cir. 2005); League for Coastal
Protection v. Norton, 2005 WL 2176910 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2005) (Department of Interior
order to undertake full NEPA analysis after failure to consider long-term environmental
impacts of new oil and gas developments in its approval of oil and gas leases). "The
determination of whether an impact would "significantly" affect the environment entails an
analysis of context and intensity. "Context" refers to the setting, such as national, regional
3506
or local. "Intensity" refers to the severity of impact, and includes such factors as public
health, effects on unique characteristics or values (such as endangered species, historic
resources or wetlands), the degree the effects are likely to be scientifically controversial,
the extent to which potential impacts are uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks,
the degree to which the action would establish precedent, and whether the proposal
threatens to violate legal requirements enacted to protect the environment." This clearly
indicates that context in which the impacts take place refers to the real world where
people live and experience ringing ears and shaking windows, not the existing computer
model. The only thing controversial about the noise issue is the NAVYs refusal to
address the noise through mitigation, rather than through denial or obfuscation via the
fragmentation of the discussion into isolated components that serve only to prevent
complete disclosure of intention or understanding. For these and other reasons, the EIS
must include disclosure and discussion of all the connected actions, and all of their
impacts."
3506
(b)(6)
3507

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island with my family for 22 years. The effects of
noise from the NAS Whidbey Island training and practice flights has dramatically
increased over these years, particularly lately, and is an undeniable and unpleasant fact
of life for us here on the island, causing a wide variety of stresses in our daily lives. We
know that the Growler flights have very significant impacts on us all. Given that there are
continuing and significant impacts, the following mitigation must be fully considered by
the EIS. All mitigation measures should be included in the Record of Decision along with
timelines for completion. a) Training paths should be modified to minimize routes over
populated areas including south Lopez. b) Growler training flights over populated areas
should be above 3000 feet elevation. c) No afterburners should be allowed on Growler
testing. e) Test, acquire, and deploy noise reduction measures for the General Electric
operations at either airfield, including FCLP and CCAs.
(b)(6)
3508
,
I have lived on Lopez Island for 33 years, appreciating the rich natural environment.
Knowing the intense impact of the Growlers on our local human population, I have
concern about their impact on our local wildlife on land, air, and sea. The EIS should
consult with marine biologists and other naturalists about the current impact on local
creatures, especially those who rely on sound for communication and navigation such as
whales, porpoises, and bats. Thank you, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3509
Victoria, V8V 1S9

To Whom It May Concern, from your Northern Neighbours: We live in an apartment in the
James Bay neighbourhood of Victoria BC and we have never gotten used to the low
rumbling that vibrates our windows, china cabinet and sometimes makes us wonder if the
enigmatically named earthquake big one has finally come to wreak havoc. While we are
thankful each time that it is not the big one, we certainly do not enjoy the growling that
comes on the wind from our southern neighbours. We have also witnessed both the
resident and migratory ducks in the park next to our home take off suddenly when the
growling is at its worst. This year we have seen fewer migratory ducks in the pond and
while there could be many reasons for this, one must wonder what the environmental
impact of your growlers might be in the long run. We are distressed to think that you
might be bringing more of these machines to our fragile coastal eco system. The growl
is deep and resonate and extremely disconcerting. Obviously the comfort of two
Canadian citizens and a few hundred water fowl is of little importance to the US Navy but
there is no harm in adding my voice for all those Canadians who knew nothing of this
opportunity to share an opinion. Best regards from your auditorily mistreated Canadian
friends, (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3510

My husband and I have been residents of Lopez for 20 years. As we and our neighbors
began to experience the noise from the new jets, we were sure that something would be
done to reduce the impact on us. Why would the Navy choose to turn the San Juan
Islands into a continuous training grounds? Why would they purposely produce loud
rumbling noise at all hours? Now I realize that nothing will be done to reverse the
sacrifice of my community, and that whatever impact this has on us is deemed
inconsequential. I'm very disappointed in my government, I'm sad, and I'm very angry.I'm
asking that at the very least a real assessment be done of the physical and psychological
impact on people,particularly those in the southern parts of Lopez. Survey people, look at
the actual effort of the continuous noise on their mental health. I don't expect any relief,
but at least there will acknowledgement of our problems. Maybe some other community
will benefit in the future.
(b)(6)
3511
Victoria BC, V8r1x7

Hi - I am ex CDN-military with PTSD (two tours in Afghanistan). The growler noise is
horrible here - it is causing incredible suffering for me and my family, when it starts I
break down and have to lock myself in my car with earplugs. It is loud and constant, and
is drastically affecting my everyday life.
(b)(6)
3512

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island for 22 years. I have operated a business, a
restaurant, in Lopez Village for 18 years. San Juan Co. Comprehensive Plan states
"...the islands are places of peace.... We support a pattern of economic growth...which
recognizes the rural, residential, quiet, agricultural, marine, and isolated nature of the
islands." At my establishment, Vortex Cafe, we have been seriously effected by fly-over
noise rarely--until the last few years. Of late, there have been countless inquiries and
discussions about the noise from island visitors. These are the people on whom success
in the seasonal island economy rests, and many of them have reactions to the
unremitting noise that range from disturbed to appalled. Quite a number have remarked
that they would not have come to Lopez if they realized that the military presence loomed
so large, or that the noise was SO noisy. Many have said that they would not return,
choosing a more quiet place to relax, to observe wildlife, to kayak in protected waters, or
even just to party. Weddings that I have catered have been interrupted by extreme noise.
Families camping are woken up repeatedly. Visiting children unaccustomed to the flights
go running to their parents in fear. Patrons seated outdoors carry their plates inside to
escape the noise and continue their conversations. One day recently a particularly low
flying Growler made the windows shake, and when I looked up from cooking, EVERY
individual in the dining area was sitting bolt upright, eyes wide, clearly not enjoying a
relaxing meal. Anecdotal as these experiences may be, they certainly indicate a
persuasive effect on visitors looking for a quiet time on a peaceful island, and they
certainly indicate significant economic impacts on an population already resigned to
limited economic opportunity. It is imperative that the EIS address economic impacts of
activities at NAS Whidbey Island throughout San Juan Co. as well as Whatcom, Skagit,
Jefferson, and Island Counties.
(b)(6)
3513

NAS Whidbey Island a small base of less than 4,000 acres cannot support 117 Growlers
and 24 Poseidons. Total area of Whidbey Island is 168.7 square miles or 107,967 acres.
China Lake, CA has 17,000 square miles of air space protected for the military. Why
even consider Whidbey Island for all the U. S. Navy Growlers when there is more than
enough space at China Lake, CA? Space on Whidbey Island has been exhausted with
serious threats to the population and ecosystem. There is a grave fear of a deadly crash
in our community. Why is the U. S. Navy putting all their eggs in one basket; doesnt this
make an attractive target? The noise from Growlers at 100 to 140+ decibels exceeds
safety limits causing hearing loss, hypertension; sleep deprivation and other serious
health threats. Children suffer from lack of sleep and disruption when the Growlers fly low
over schools. The true level of noise is not reflected with computer modeling. When will
the Navy do an actual on site evaluation at our homes of noise to determine a factual
level of noise with a certified decibel meter? How can Growlers be permitted to threaten
the public without a completed Environmental Impact Statement? Growler noise is
detrimental to migrating birds. As long as I can remember a flock of Trumpeter Swans
have made their winter home in our field. This year they have failed to return. I saw an
Eagle the symbol of our nation struggling to stay in flight from turbulence just beneath a
Growler flying over our home. I was in fear the Eagle would be taken into the Growler
causing a crash. There are several Eagle nests on our property. What is the U. S. Navy
doing to protect these birds? Only transient members of the U.S. Navy want to keep NAS
Whidbey Island active. When did the military have a choice of residence arent personnel
stationed where they are needed? No wonder Navy personnel want to live here Whidbey
Island was a pristine environment, fresh air with a moderate climate, majestic views of
Puget Sound and the mountains with recreational opportunities before the occupation of
the U. S. Navy destroyed quality of life. Permanent residents, many that have lived four
or five generations at Whidbey Island on heritage land want to be free of the menace of a
military installation. Civilians are resourceful, self-sufficient with no dependence on
government funds. The Navy has destroyed quality of life with their loud invasive noise
from early morning until well past midnight often until 2 AM. Why does the Navy fly past
10 PM a restriction in place in other locations with a military presence? When will time be
set-aside for civilians to sleep? Employment has become an issue of concern. Military
preference is discrimination in hiring. Young adults from local families are denied
employment because they have no military service even though they are often far more
qualified. This practice causes resentment in the community. Why should our youth be
forced to move away from families because they are not considered for employment until
all with military service are considered? What about double dippers taking employment
from young families? Havent they planned to live on their retirement? With Growlers at a
more suitable base wouldnt most contractors move to that base? Military discounts are
also discrimination why must civilians pay full price? The ONLY access to Whidbey Island
is a two lane scenic bridge built in 1938. Will our historic Deception Pass Bridge be
preserved? The Navy burns at least 24 million gallons of toxic jet fuel every year as
published in the Navy My Base Guide but not upgraded for several years to include
expansion. Growlers burn 1,300 gallons per hour causing toxic damage to the ecosystem
polluting the air. Pilots fly at the level of the treetops over our homes there are no trees
on Whidbey Island 500 feet in height. Many civilians have paid premium price live on
prime waterfront property. Will an unbiased Environmental Impact Study be completed on
air quality and the impact on the water in the sound and drinking water? NAS Whidbey
Island was on the BRAC list in 1991 and again in 2005. Realtors make a commission
every time they sell or rent a home and car dealers aligned with elected officials against
the will of the voters to keep NAS Whidbey Island active. Their meetings were held with
no public notice out of the public view with public funds. Navy personnel move frequently
an advantage to Realtors. Navy personnel buy new cars frequently hardly ever driving a
car more than three years old giving incentive for automobile dealers to support NAS
Whidbey Island. Navy personnel also demand respect from civilians that have lived here
for over 100 years they are rude making comments that we are not patriotic to complain
about the invasive Growler noise turning Whidbey Island into a war zone. Vandalism to
civilian property has occurred since a recent lawsuit was filed to halt Growler training at
the Outlying Field located in a National Reserve. Clearly there has been a noise issue for
27 years. Roscoe Hatch, a retired Army engineer, filed a previous lawsuit against noise in
1988 along with other citizens living near the OLF in Coupeville. Civilians are harassed in
a vicious manner by people who support NAS Whidbey Island. Car windows have been
smashed with valuables and personal information stolen. One Grandmother was
threatened with rape, harassed with telephone calls and calls to trash her home for
writing a letter to the editor complaining of lack of respect for civilians and loss of sleep
from Growler noise. Respected members of the community have been slandered with
lies. A civilian contractor was nearly beaten to death at NAS Whidbey Island. Our
community was never advised of any action taken by the Navy for these crimes. Signs
were vandalized, the mother of the vandal reported she had the paint her daughter used.
The Sheriff refused to take any action even with this testimony and proof. This is a
transparent case of officials catering to the Navy failing to protect citizens. This is an
aspect that makes living in a war zone even more unacceptable. This is used to
intimidate civilians into accepting life in a war zone silencing our voices. The U. S. Navy
has suppressed our right to freedom of speech. U. S. Navy pilots retaliate against those
making complaints. Our complaints are never addressed we have never had a call
returned. Pilots fly more over our homes making more of that noise they somehow make
that is louder than just flying. Captain Nortier denies Growlers fly low over our home.
There is no possibility anything but a Growler is directly above our home the noise is
distinctive it shakes the foundation of our home. The U.S. Navy has no right to turn
civilian land into an armed camp violating property rights with no compensation. There
are restrictions on agriculture concerning grain crops in one of the finest areas to grow
wheat and oats. This is a significant restriction on income. I have lost respect for military
leaders since the 2007 Defense Authorization Act granted retired Admirals and Generals
$219,600 to $271,892 annual retirement pay plus benefits. This is called service to their
country? Civilians in the area around military reservations are serving their country too.
We serve 24 hours a day seven days a week with noise impacting our lives in an
extremely negative manner. We have been drafted we have no choice. What is
Congress willing to compensate us for our service that goes on far beyond our
retirement? Growlers do not belong on Whidbey Island or any of the surrounding
communities with the loud invasive level of noise. We want our quality of life preserved.
The public is no longer willing to squander trillions on defense based on imagined
threats to maintain their status. The military does not protect Americans from earsplitting
noise, pollution and health threats they only protect their own livelihood.
3513
(b)(6)
3514
Victoria BC , V8N1T4
I live across the strait and we frequently hear the aircraft taking off. The noise is a
disruption to our lives and any way to mitigate the noise would be appreciated. Many
thanks.
(b)(6)
3515

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island for 22 years with my family. Over the years,
I have followed with interest the developments at NAS Whidbey Island, and was
surprised to find that the 2012 Environmental Assessment found such mild effects on
places such as south Lopez. As the effects of the fly-overs become more burdensome,
healthwise and economically, it is clear that the 2012 Assessment as well as the 2005
Assessment were seriously deficient in considering the real effects on our local
population. The present EIS should carefully address each of the following areas:
Analysis Human Health consequences Alternatives Mitigation Economic consequences
This EIS should conduct all analysis from the beginning and not rely on, or tier off of, the
(b)(6)
3516
lopez, WA 98261
The Salish Sea historically abounded with salmon. Lately juvenile salmon are not making
the migration to the sea. Salmon will not leave protected waters until they have
accumulated enough body mass to make the journey to the next safe feeding ground.
Local scientists have discovered that these salmon are eating land based insects
because of the lack of herring and sand lances. Herring and sand lances would eat tiny
crustaceans called cocopods these cocopods are the basis of the food chain. Ocean
acidification has ruined the cocopods' ability to grow their exoskeletons. No cocopods no
herring, no herring, no salmon. Burning vast amounts of jet fuel combined with all the
other navy generated pollution right where juvenile salmon start their journey to the sea
can only cause harm. What is the navy going to do to protect this our country? How are
growler jets defending the salmon?
(b)(6)
3517

My wife and I moved to Lopez Island in 1993 to raise children and get out of the city. My
wife works in Lopez Village, and I work at home. I spend a great deal of time out doors
with the children and our animals. Over time, the effects of the NAS Whidbey Island
Growlers has become more and more difficult to overcome. It seems to me that the
analysis of the 2005 and 2012 EIS findings is clearly inadequate. In the 2012 EIS,
projected noise contours indicates that San Juan Co. is outside the affected area. This is
obviously not true; we are affected deeply and regularly. The Growlers are very loud and
very disruptive. This EIS should conduct continuous sound measurements in south San
Juan Co. over a one month period. It is also important to include the low frequency C
weighted measurements and analysi in the EIS. The EIS should also incorporate
supplemental noise measurements including SEL and peak sound level in addition the
Day-Night Average metric for assessing impacts. Document the projected number of
events that exceed 60 dbSEL and Lmax in 5 db increments throughout the impacted
areas of the San Juan islands. Sound measurements and analysis should also include
afterburners, or the Navy should commit in the mitigation section of the Record of
Decision not to use afterburners in training flights.
(b)(6)
3518

I have lived on the south end of Lopez Island for 41 years. The increase in the noise level
from NAS Whidbey Island from the Growlers makes me concerned about adding any
more Growlers to NASWI. I would like to see all the following area studied by the EIS.
(b)(6)
3519
Montesano, WA 98563
I am a resident of Montesano, WA and have resided in this town for 3 years. When I first
heard the jets overhead I thought the worst: a war or terrorist attack. The sound was
frightening, intrusive and upsetting. Now I know that the source is military jets but the
noise continues to cause a startle response and disturbs my peace of mind, creating
stress and physiological changes. I would like a study done of the effect of the
combinations of loudness and extended exposure to noise on hearing loss and potential
responses include annoyance, sleep deprivation, nervous, hormonal and vascular
changes. Please study what effect the low frequency noise can have deleterious impacts
even if there is not a loud hearing sensation. Study what are the effects on animals as
well as on humans. How much how much carbon dioxide is produced by one of the
EA-18G Growlers Navy jets and what chemicals are being released? What are their
health effects on humans, animals and plants? How are the aircraft affecting climate and
the ozone layer?
(b)(6)
3520
Victoria, V8N 6K7

I live just outside Vitoria, British Columbia in the district of Saanich, on Southeastern tip of
Vancouver Island. Everyday I hear rumblings from Whidbey Island. Sometimes it is just
once or twice a day, other times it may be dozens. On days when it occurs frequently, I
find it distracting. Even from inside my home it is a disturbance. In the interest of National
safety I can appreciate the need for these planes. But please, any significant increase in
the rumblings caused by Growler jets would become an unbearable disturbance of the
peace. Noise pollution is the phrase which comes to mind. Please be considerate of the
Canadian stakeholders. We hear it clearly up here.
(b)(6)
3521
Pender Island, WA 00000

On this SGI in BC, these activities seem to make the whole island huff, almost as if it was
breathing. My house sits entirely on rock, so I am unsure if the breathing is from my
well-anchored house, or from the rock itself and the cavities below. Only in recent years
was I given a clue!
3523
3523
3523
3526
3527
3531
3532
3532
3532
3532
3532
3534
3535
3535
3535
3536
3537
3537
3541
3544
3547
Page 19
10
(The PII disclosure statement was read to the

following commenter.)
11
(b)(6)
12
(b)(6)
13
keep it
14
My name is
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
My physical -- I just moved there.
I'll just
, Eastsound, Washington 98245.
(b)(6)
All right.
I'll just start with this.
I grew up by
15
a very major airport in New York, JFK, and we dealt with jet
16
noise from commercial planes every day for years.
17
think everyone that I grew up with has basically a version
18
of shaken baby syndrome.
19
Where you shake a baby, it's really bad on that little baby
20
growing up.
21
buildings ceiling tiles shook in all the buildings I came
22
and went from for 17 years until I left for college.
23
think after living here 20 years now, I think I'm probably
24
not suffering from that anymore, but I don't really think
25
that it's wise to continue having people live underneath
And I
You know what that is, right.
All the windows, all the doors, all the

So I
(800) 686-1325
3547
Page 20
1
that level of noise for that many days in a row.
don't live on Whidbey Island, I live on the San Juan Island.
And to think that that noise will migrate up here to where I
live now is intolerable.
this being -- this area has been judged as being an area of
no significance as far as the Navy is considered.
know, there's quite a large population of people living
here.
living in the bays and coves where if you go by on the
Yeah.
And I
I just -- I can't image
This is not a wilderness area.
And, you
There are many people
10
ferry, it doesn't look like anyone really lives here because
11
it's all full of trees, but there are people living all over
12
these islands.
13
disappointed people who feel like their peace and quiet are
14
being compromised.
15
their health because recently I mentioned my previous life
16
in New York and the shaken baby by JFK Airport.
17
Yeah.
18
how when you sleep, your body reacts to all kinds of
19
external stressors like noise, like sirens and trains going
20
by and airplanes going overhead.
21
night whether people are asleep and unconscious or awake and
22
cognizant it's going to affect all these people here for as
23
long as this program is functioning out of Oak Harbor.
24
So I really think that the idea of having this
25
And I think that there will be a lot of very
And not just their peace and quiet, but
Okay.
And one woman just said, oh, yeah, I just read about
So I feel like day or
Growler base here -- what do you call that -- located here

(800) 686-1325
3547
Page 21
1
is a poor idea.
where not that many people live.
the Lopez are impacted already.
have an impact at the moment, but I'm thinking that there
will be an impact if the squadron increases in size.
And that it needs to be taken someplace

From what I understand,
I lived on Orcas.
But I really feel for these people on Lopez who
already feel like their quality of life has been
compromised, which I didn't realize until recently.
I don't
Oh, and then the other thing.
This is my part two.
10
Not as personal as what I just mentioned, but it's my
11
understanding that a lot of the pilots were -- I don't know
12
if there was a lot of them, but a significant number are
13
from Australia.
14
send pilots here to train on these Growlers to learn how to
15
fly them so then they feel like they can go ahead and order
16
planes from Boeing, I just can't sign off on that, that
17
business model where we get to experience the noise of
18
basically the Navy advertising Boeings airplanes for sale to
19
Australia.
20
planes, they should -- the United States Navy should take
21
them over to Australia and have them fly over the Australian
22
people's houses and homes and see how that turns out for
23
them there.
24
number is, but when I did read up on this issue a little
25
bit, it came to my attention that there was this large
And if the Australian government wants to
If the Australian government really wants these
But to have -- and I really don't know what the

(800) 686-1325
3547
Page 22
1
number supposedly of Australian pilots who were learning how
to fly these planes here.
I don't want to repeat what I said necessarily right
now, but I feel like the Navy shouldn't be, like, acting as
a conduit for business for Boeing to sell these planes to
Australia.
Australian government should connect with Boeing on a more
direct level, and we shouldn't tolerate the Navy here being
the middleman.
If Boeing wants to sell these planes, the
But I think I know why that's going on.
10
We're happy with the squadron of 82 planes at the moment.
11
And it's 2014 now.
12
upgrade possibly of these Growler aircrafts, and yet we
13
don't want Boeing to close down its military aeronautics
14
division for the lack of sales.
15
of forced to help Boeing along by having the United States
16
Navy have act as, like, a middleman salesman to help the
17
Boeing Corporation out, which I don't want Boeing to go out
18
of business because I think it's really important that we
19
have Boeing Corporation build planes here because a huge
20
number of people are employed by it; but I don't feel like
21
we need to suffer the consequences of the Boeing business
22
model for the need to sell these military-based aircraft.
23
I'm done.
24
And maybe in 2021, we'll want to have an

So I feel like we are sort
(800) 686-1325
3548
Page 18
11
12
13
16

14
15
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
So I've been a resident on Lopez for over 30 years.
17
I've raised my children here, and my grandchildren are
18
growing up here.
19
from Whidbey Island, but the Growlers are over the top.
20
They're very disturbing.
21
feel it in your body.
22
image what the impact is for the land, the people, the
23
animals, all living things.
24
25
I'm familiar with the sounds of aircraft
My grandson is disturbed.
It shakes your windows.
You can
I can't
I don't know why the Growlers have to fly over the

land here.
The impact is huge.

I understand that we have
(800) 686-1325
3548
Page 19
1
not been considered in a significant impact area, so I'm
glad that the Navy has come here tonight to find out that
the impact of the Growlers is significant and they suck.
So why -- why do they have to fly so low?
they so loud?
densely populated areas?
Thank you.
Why are
Why does the training have to happen over

And there must be alternatives.

(800) 686-1325
3549
Page 12
1
I
W
'
ll I h
*
(Th
)
MS
L E L A
LELA
I d
10
11
I l
12
A h
b
b
l M
b
h
h
I
h
h
l d d
h
'
A S H A
l M
L l
'
13
PII d
f ll
'
I d
l d
l
'
EAPA
Th
J
S
L
l h
d b
14
21
22
23

24
(b)(6)
25
We have lived on Lopez for 15 years, and we moved
(b)(6)

,(b)(6)
(800) 686-1325
3549
Page 13
1
here because it's quiet and peaceful.
Francisco Bay Area, and we took a week and drove all around
Puget Sound looking at various communities.
nice bed and breakfast on Whidbey Island one night during
this searching week.
awakened by very loud jet noise, which we thought might be
World War III because we did not know the Naval Air Station
was on Whidbey.
to live.
We came from the San
We stayed at a
In the middle of night, we were rudely
So that ruled out Whidbey Island as a place
We eventually bought property here, and we've been
10
here happy ever since, until recently when the noise has
11
increased.
12
because it's just terrible.
13
14
15
(Th
21
h
d
*
d
lf
M E T C A L F
fl
METCALF
lf 2@
19
You have to stop talking.
)
MR
18
20
PII d
f ll
16
17
If it keeps going this way, we will move away
f
l
I
h
h

b
b
20
I d
'
I
I
f
(800) 686-1325
3550
Page 14
1
d d
b d
b d
l k
I d
'
h
h
ld b
h
'

10
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
11
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
.
Okay.
So when I moved here five years ago, the
12
noise was pretty bad, and has gotten progressively worse and
13
worse and worse, from my point of view.
14
time I developed a nervous skin disorder caused by stress
15
and anxiety.
16
this constant noise because I live in the south end of Lopez
17
Island.
18
they're doing their run-ups and the noise goes on for hours
19
and hours and hours, there's a low thundering rumbling
20
sound, it just doesn't seem to stop.
21
races, my breathing is repressed.
22
deep breathes.
23
completely consciously aware of, but it definitely gets --
24
and it happens late at night so there's time when it starts
25
at, like, ten at night and go past midnight when you're
Over that period of
My doctors contend that it could come from
And so basically when the planes fly over or when
Your -- my heart
I have a hard time taking
It's something that you're not necessarily

(800) 686-1325
3550
Page 15
1
trying to sleep and settle down for the night.
The -- there are several reasons why I believe this
is not a compatible use for the San Juan Islands and the
other communities within this area.
of the residents is a paramount of importance.
how many people are experiencing health issues that really
seem to be directly attributed to this kind of noise and to
the jet fuel smell, etc.
Number one, the health

You know,
And the islands are really dependent on tourism.
10
just achieved National Monument status, and this is a
11
complete disruption of that.
12
that -- disruption to the state park.
13
can't stay there.
14
We
The noise is not something -You know, people
It's so noisy in the summer.
So, you know, when it's economic -- when it's a
15
health issue and also an economic issues, both of those, you
16
know, really make this so important that the Navy should
17
consider that the Growlers/Prowler should move elsewhere or
18
find a way to make those planes quiet.
19
I mean, I do understand why the planes have to be
20
this noisy.
21
has spent millions on other things.
22
to figure out how to make these planes quieter, if they
23
don't want to move the whole operation.
24
compatible use for the San Juan Islands.
25
to say.
It seems like you know their -- the military

They can certainly try
And it's not

That's all I have
(800) 686-1325
3551
Page 5
1
Ok
A d
MR
GILBREATH
GILBREATH
A d
MS
S
h
ll
d
d
GILBREATH
f
h
k d
MR
h
Th
'
Th
b
l
12
MS
GILBREATH
Ok
13
MR
GILBREATH
Wh
MS
GILBREATH
14
b
b
ll
G
15
16
d
G
'
A d
'
17
20
21
22

23
(b)(6)
24
(b)(6)
25
That's fine.
:
(b)(6)
).
The jets are, like, pretty, too
loud.

(800) 686-1325
3551
Page 6
1
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
How do they make you feel?

:
They hurt my ears.
Anything else?
:
No.
Say how old you are.

:
Five.
So Jasper, do you have anything else
you want to say about the jets?
over?
What happens to us?
10
(b)(6)
11
(b)(6)
12
they're going over?
13
(b)(6)
14
(b)(6)
15
What happens when they go
:
:
They kind of shake the room.
Can we talk to each other while
:
:
(Negative nonverbal response.)
No.
Anything else that you want to
add?
16
(b)(6)
17
(b)(6)
18
(b)(6)
:
:
:
No.
No?
Nothing else.
19
*
T
PII
f ll
l
)
MS
C
REESE
d
L
I l
R
d
L O R N
98261
R E E S E
l

(800) 686-1325
3552
Page 3
1
(3:00 p.m.)
(b)(6)
98261 is the zip.
last name is
Lopez Island.
and the street address is
Okay.
10
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
The mailing address is
(b)(6)
and I live on
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
When these planes fly over the village -- this is
11
the village -- and hover, I feel that I am being shaken
12
(indicating.)
13
different people who seem to know what they're talking about
14
because they're pilots, they advise that on naval ships,
15
planes make their approaches over the water and not over
16
land.
17
And it is most uncomfortable.
That's all I have to say.
Speaking to
I feel very strongly, of
18
course, because I know some people have it even worse than
19
we do in the village.
20
21

(800) 686-1325
3553
Page 4
1
h
h
'
h
d b
I k
d
h
'
f
b
'
d
d
A d I
'
b
I
'
10
11
12
l h

13
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
14
This summer we were sitting in our living room watching TV,
15
and suddenly our floor started shaking, the house started
16
shaking, and we couldn't hear the TV; and it was because the
17
Growler was flying out.
18
property on the south end of Lopez Island, and it was so
19
loud that we actually could not even talk to somebody within
20
a foot of each other, which is terribly loud.
21
inside to just protect our ears.
22
And another time we were on our
We had to go
So we understand that the Navy is training our
23
pilots.
24
they could perhaps just change the path slightly to be over
25
the water instead of over the land.
We support that entirely, but we were wondering if

(800) 686-1325
3553
Page 5
1
Okay.
(b)(6)
And the other thing we were wondering is -:
We were wondering if they can divert
And the after jets come on.
the path.
(b)(6)
Sometimes they get the after jets coming on, which makes it
really loud.
Yeah.
(b)(6)
We already asked them about
that.
they're not turning on afterburners or anything like that,
10
but they may be banking or turning enough to make a change
11
to the noise.
They're not turning on afterburners.
The pilot said
12
(b)(6)
Okay.
13
(b)(6)
When the big Growler noises come,
So we understand that there's a
14
So basically --
you know.
15
(b)(6)
16
change between the Prowlers to the Growlers.
17
not having a perception of a perceived change.
18
the problem is.
19
environment taking place.
22
23
That's all.
*
(Th
f ll
That's what
We're having an actual change to our
20
21
And so we're
PII d
)
MS
FONVILLE
Th

'
ll
( h)
(800) 686-1325
3554
Page 9
1
(Th
MS
Old H
J d
d R
I l
h
h
k ll d
d
14
d
h
16
18
19
A d
d
h
'
ll
ll
f
h
Al h
d
h I
h
d
'll
f l
24
l
B
h
h
A d
d
A d
l
h
lk
b l
'
ll
b
d I'
Th
79
98261
h
l
A d
d
h
25
b f
S N A P P
Th
fl
21
ld
d
l
20
fl
17
13
20
h
f
11
12
J O D I E
h
h
10
SNAPP
f ll
PII d
h I d
b
b
'
20
k
h
h

(800) 686-1325
3554
Page 10
1
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
THE REPORTER:
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
,(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Can you please speak up for me?

Street address,
Lopez Island, 98261.

We have a farm here.
(b)(6)
That's me.
40 acre farm.
And, I guess --
I mean, I can -- I have a list of things here, but I am
definitely impacted by the Navy operation.
For an example,
10
before noon today -- actually, sorry -- 1 o'clock today we
11
had 24 of these aircrafts fly over my farm.
12
they generally fly them at 3,000 feet.
13
more at, like, 500.
14
realize these guys have to get out and train probably in the
15
bad weather, they seem to fly a lot more and the sound
16
energy that gets reflected down, it's many, many decibels
17
higher than if there are no clouds.
18
plug my ears.
19
livestock animals.
20
It's day in and day out.
21
And they say
I would say it's
And when it's cloudy or rainy -- and I
It's unbelievable.
So I literally have to
We have 200 animals --
I know it's damaging their hearing.
I totally understand it's an important weapons'
22
system, but it's really getting to be bad out here.
23
last few years it's gotten to be a lot worse -- activity.
24
So I guess -- I guess, two things I would like to know.
25
there a way, if the Navy can be more reliant on computer

In the
Is
(800) 686-1325
3554
Page 11
1
training and flight simulators, to still meet their same
goals of training their pilots to be, you know, ready to do
everything they need to do?
I've talked to an airline pilot about our specific
problems, that I know that I'm good friends with.
said the most important thing -- and I don't know the impact
of how they do their simulated carrier landing, and I mean,
I know they have to line up and there's a long distance they
have to have to make it be the same as if they were doing it
And he
10
on an aircraft carrier, but there's a thing they call
11
cleaning up the airplane.
12
knew exactly what I was talking about.
13
over our island a lot of times with their -- I would say 95
14
percent of the time with their landing gear down and their
15
flaps back to go into some kind of a landing pattern.
16
if they can fly over with the gear up and the flap set
17
nominal just at a cruise, they would -- they wouldn't have
18
to apply near as much power to get the same air speed that
19
they want.
20
fundamental problems.
21
The guy I talked to over here, he

These guys, they fly
And
So he said that's the fundamental -- one of the
And the other thing is that can they fly at a higher
22
altitude over our island and still meet their objectives.
23
mean, they might have to modify some things that they do,
24
but I think that would do a great deal to minimize the
25
impact to Lopez Island.

(800) 686-1325
3554
Page 12
1
I think that's all I have to say.

Were those comments?
18
19
20
ll
ff
l
Th
'
22
(Th
f ll
I h d
l
I '
21
23
I don't know.
PII d
*
d

(800) 686-1325
3555
Page 12

(b)(6)
(b)(6)
My name is
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
, last name
I don't want to give my e-mail.

I want to make a comment about that the San Juan
National Monument must be included in the EAPA.
The San
10
Juan National Monument, which includes this area on Lopez
11
Island, because of the archaeological cultural history of
12
that area, yeah, so I think that's what I want to say.
13
So it's a heavily touristed area used by locals and
14
visitors, and has a recreation area, and our economy depends
15
-- the Lopez economy depends on tourism.
16
the disturbance really impacts -- the noise of these jets
17
and disturbance really impacts the visitors and the locals,
18
and will affect the purpose of this land, of this national
19
monument land.
20
said very accurately.
21
And the noise and
That's sort of what I had to say.

It's not
(800) 686-1325
3555
Page 13
1
here because it's quiet and peaceful.
Francisco Bay Area, and we took a week and drove all around
Puget Sound looking at various communities.
nice bed and breakfast on Whidbey Island one night during
this searching week.
awakened by very loud jet noise, which we thought might be
World War III because we did not know the Naval Air Station
was on Whidbey.
to live.
We came from the San
We stayed at a
In the middle of night, we were rudely
So that ruled out Whidbey Island as a place
We eventually bought property here, and we've been
10
here happy ever since, until recently when the noise has
11
increased.
12
because it's just terrible.
13
14
15
18
You have to stop talking.

*

16
17
If it keeps going this way, we will move away
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
.
My comment has to do with the county system where we
19
report incidents of excessive noise that I don't think it
20
reflects correctly what the issue is because I -- I report
21
things, not -- I only report maybe 20 percent of what I
22
could report in the first place, and I know most people
23
don't go through the trouble of reporting it at all.
24
when I look at the map and you make it larger so you can see
25
where the complaints are, there's -- there's very, very few

And
(800) 686-1325
3556
Page 13
13
14
15
18

16
17
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
.
My comment has to do with the county system where we
19
report incidents of excessive noise that I don't think it
20
reflects correctly what the issue is because I -- I report
21
things, not -- I only report maybe 20 percent of what I
22
could report in the first place, and I know most people
23
don't go through the trouble of reporting it at all.
24
when I look at the map and you make it larger so you can see
25
where the complaints are, there's -- there's very, very few

And
(800) 686-1325
3556
Page 14
1
that -- if anybody -- if anybody was there paying attention
and doing this reporting like I was, there would be at least
ten times as many.
reliable indication.
by at least ten, if not 20.
(Th
PII d
f ll
MS
FINLEY
A d
A N D R E A
F I N L E Y
11
Ok
12
h
b d
13
14
15
You take those numbers and multiple it
10
So I don't think that that's a very
I d
17
I l
k
d
d
d
b
A d
d h
d
M
d h
16

ld
h
d b
I l
ll
h
fl
f
d
f L
h
(800) 686-1325
3557
Page 3
1
(3:00 p.m.)
(Th
FROMM
98261
dd
Wh
h
212 W
ll
12
13
d ff
14
M ll
fl
d h
'
A d
l
I f
20
22
M O L L I E
W E E K S
Ok
10
21
)
MS
11
f ll
PII d
bl
ll
h k
S
'
k
lk
l

23
(b)(6)
24
I just want to say that I don't see how anyone can
25
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
have quality of life living with this level of noise.

This
(800) 686-1325
3557
Page 4
1
piercing, gut-wrenching -- it's weaponry.
they're made loud because they intimidate and they frighten
and they have a major impact on people, and we are being
subjected to this as if we're enemy.
see how that can be considered okay to terrorize our own
citizenry.
I know that's why
And I -- I just don't
I think that the noise level has been minimized
somehow by the research, and I think it needs to be looked
at more clearly.
10
11
18
19
20
h
l
d
f
21
24
ll
f
f L
I l
ld
lk
bl
b d
d
h d
22
23
S
l
h
W
ld
h
h
h
l

N
b
d
h
h l
f
b
(800) 686-1325
3558
Page 16
1

(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
years now.
to have this many more planes here, that many more planes
there or they have more sound instruments.
can have 15 of them on Lopez or not, or the cost is so
Lopez Island.
Lived here for 40-something
I keep hearing, you know, about the cost of --
I mean, if we
10
great -- and so I want to know what the cost of my child's
11
hearing is.
12
if my child has not the ability to have attention in the
13
classroom, how much that is going to cost.
I want to know
14
if the Navy even cares about these costs.
Does it matter.
15
Are they here to protect us, or are they -- I get kind of
16
conflicted here because they're certainly not protecting my
17
child's -- children's ears, my two sons, when they're in the
18
sandbox and there's a pail of water in the sandbox next to
19
them and it's vibrating because the plane is flying that
20
close and he has his hands over his ears.
21
affecting him greatly.
22
should be satisfied in the promotion of fear that those
23
airplanes have.
24
our own people, but you have certainly done a good job in
25
promoting fear.
I want to know if that matters.
I want to know
I'm sure it's
And I want them to know that they
And I'm saddened that we use them against
Your intention has been -- it's full-on

(800) 686-1325
3558
Page 17
1
done.
And my wife wanted me to say that part.

And I'm just really confused about the cost to my
children's ears.
and GPS's and the airplane pilots' whereabouts are known and
their heights.
Why is it they're saying they're flying X amount of
elevation and I know that it's way lower than that.
they say they don't.
with more transparency so we could understand and believe
I want to know -- I know about plotters
And why -- those aren't public knowledge.
And
If we can hold them more accountable
10
them.
11
don't fly underneath those elevations and, yet, I know they
12
do.
13
But at the moment, the Navy says that their pilots
I've live down here.

I run a saw mill, and when I can't hear my saw mill
14
with my earmuffs on because the plane is so loud, it's got
15
to be too low.
16
it appears to me that the Navy consistently does not ever
17
hear from their people.
18
too many Growlers in it and they are deaf.
19
that the Navy, that the military hears, is from the higher
20
up brass.
21
saddens me that you always have to walk upon my children's
22
ears and my ears to promote your agenda of fear tactics.
23
And you're very successful.
24
25
And I wish I believed in this process, but
I think that their ears have had

The only noise
Not from the people they walk upon.
And it
And it was Eisenhower who was talking about the

military industrial complex, and we are succeeding in that.

(800) 686-1325
3558
Page 18
1
And I'm sadden that that's what we choose to spend all of
our money on instead of talking care of each other.
So please make a good decision.
I hope that you
spend money on lots of sound technology to hear how loud
things are on Lopez Island and all around and not to scrimp
money on that and to spend money on transparency so we would
know where the supposed good pilots are flying, to know if
they're really flying in their flight path, and why they are
not.
10
Is it because they're uneducated or because you won't
give us the real information.
11
12
13
(Th
PII d
B O N N V I L L E
16
S
I'
I'
d
18
Th
21
22
Wh db
'
I'
I l
ll
h
f
b
d
l
h
b
b d
h B
h ld
D b
20
BONNVILLE
15
)
MS
19
f ll
14
17
Thank you very much.
M
I
d h ld
h

h k
f
30
b d
'
(800) 686-1325
3559
Page 6
MS
FONVILLE
J SPER FONVILLE
MS
FONVILLE
l
N
J SPER FONVILLE
MS
FONVILLE
FONVILLE
J SPER FONVILLE
MS
l
W
W
J SPER FONVILLE
MS
FONVILLE
'
19
20
21

22
(b)(6)
23
(b)(6)
24
(b)(6)
25
(b)(6)
,(b)(6)
Lopez Island, 98261.
(b)
E-mail
So the first question is how did you pick -- start

(800) 686-1325
3559
Page 7
1
over.
How did you choose to continue and increase Growler
operations on Whidbey rather than another island location?
Second question, why can't the Growlers take a
flight path that doesn't cross land?
Third question, why can't the Growlers move more
quickly to higher elevation to reduce noise on the ground?
Fourth, is afterburner noise considered in the EIS?
Five, why haven't you taken noise measurements in
10
San Juan County to verify the computer models used to
11
identify impacted areas?
12
Next, what is known -- what is known about how jet
13
noise carries across water?
14
taken into account in the computer modeling?
15
Is that -- sorry.
How is that
Why have you neglected to measure a lower frequency
16
noise that is a known cause of adverse health impact from
17
jet noise?
18
Next, why don't you post all scoping comments as
19
soon as they are submitted so citizens know what issues are
20
being raised?
21
22
Other agencies do this.
And last, will there be public meetings in San Juan

County to discuss the draft EIS?
23

Okay.
*
(800) 686-1325
3560
Page 22
1
fl
I d
b
I f
f A
'
dl
l l k
I
ld '
b
ll
ll
If B
ld
l k
h
h B
12
13
14
15
17
18
'
f b
f f
16
bl
h
h l
h
I
S
b
I f
h I d
'
l l k
h
ddl
l k
l
'
ll
d S
h l
B
h
19
24
25

(800) 686-1325
3560
Page 23
1
(b)(6)
I'm(b)(6)
).
Well, as a matter of
feedback, the jets are too loud.
used, their loudness is going to have a detrimental effect
on our country, if they're flying over our country.
making life intolerable here.
someone else's country, they are doing great disservice to
our foreign reputations, and recruiting enemies of our
country by doing something outrageously rude and insensitive
10
11
Anywhere, anytime they're
It's
If they're flying over
to whoever is below them or even in the vicinity.

At my house and on other locations on Lopez Island,
12
I can feel the ground shake when the jets are operating.
13
That's not necessarily when they're flying over.
14
only -- we're not -- excuse me.
15
excuse me.
16
You don't have to write in
The noise from the jets makes the ground shake even
17
when they're not flying.
18
frequency that gets to your gut.
19
deafening every creature.
20
frog, horse.
21
That's
It's loud, but it's also a certain

It's inescapable, it's
Every man, woman, child, duck,
Causing avalanches probably in the mountains.
We, as an intelligent, civilized society, ought to
22
be able to figure out how to fly and make war with machines
23
that are less noisy.
24
25
Let's see.
What else can I say.
We'd surely be
better off spending the money doing something else, either

(800) 686-1325
3560
Page 24
1
getting it straight off to the people in the world we want
to influence elsewhere because it's cheaper than war, or
spending it on our own environment, education, and
healthcare for the goodness of our country.
I was going to say something about the Navy has a
reputation for really round education, and it seems like the
Naval intelligence and the Naval mindset would know better
than to have such a cumbersome piece of equipment.
loud to be used anywhere.
10
It's too
(The Public Scoping Meeting concluded at 6:00 p.m.)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(800) 686-1325
3561
Page 7
N
?
l
Wh
f
f
?
N
'
23
24
25
ll


(800) 686-1325
3561
Page 8
1
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Lopez Island, Washington.

I live here year-round.
It seems to me that it
really should be a no environment impact here.
than a few minutes of loud noise a year, and I don't see why
anyone shouldn't be able to put up with that.
I hear less
So you're not asking questions, we're just making
comments.
nuts in the Middle East, whether we want to be or not.
We are at war with some psychopathic religious

I
10
think we ought to at least allow our pilots to train if
11
we're going to send them into missions where they don't even
12
have any ground support.
13
I guess this is mainly about EA-18's.
That an
14
electronic warfare plane.
15
county or an island should really have any say in where the
16
Air Force and the Navy locates their planes.
17
good reasons to wanting to locate here.
18
built by Boeing.
19
are even being asked.
20
located away from the county, why their operations should
21
take place away from the county.
22
been there a lot longer than all the complainers that I see
23
on the island.
24
25
I don't see why people in a small
They must have
I know they're
I don't see why a lot of these questions
All right.
Why the Growlers should have to be
The Navy -- the base has
I think that's all.

*

Thank you.
(800) 686-1325
3562
Page 9
1

(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
, Lopez Island, Washington 98261.
(b)(6)
My comment is that the goats -- I own goats, and I'm
training them to work in fields to clear noxious weeds and
other vegetation that is unwanted.
that are killed at the end of the season.
trained, working animals.
So these are not animals

These are my
And they are -- anytime a jet
10
flies over, 20 seconds before I actually hear the jet, my
11
goats start to react.
12
making noises and moving around in circles.
13
jets fly over, their activity and their reaction is much
14
more dramatic and much more verbal, really.
15
couldn't hear it because the jets are so loud, as the jets
16
pass, they continue to make these dramatic actions, and then
17
slow down once they're gone.
18
the noise anymore, they're still moving for about 20 more
19
seconds.
20
they were doing, clearing a piece of land or just hanging
21
out in their pens.
22
and I see the goats at the same instance.
23
comment.
They react by talking to me and

And then as the
Although I
And even though I don't hear
And then when it ends, they'll go back to what
But it happens every time I see a jet
24

That's my
(800) 686-1325
3563
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
ll b
Ol
fl
N
l P
I
l
13
11
12
d
l
10
14
ld l
f
l
h
d
15
16
***
17
(b)(6)
18
My concern is about the noise of Growlers, adding
Port Townsend, Washington 98368.
19
even more of them.
20
based there.
21
people who live much closer than I do, and basically I'm
22
concerned about all those same things.
23
values, kids in school, noise, in that regard.
24
25
I know there are many that are already
I've read various comments and talked with
They are property
But I have two additional things to add.
One is
that there is a spot on the west side of the Olympics that
3563
3
1
has been designated the quietest place in America.
Google the quietest square inch in the United States and get
information about this work that was done and recognized
about ten years ago at Earth Day.
is such a contrast to what it is that the Growlers do, how
much noise they provide so close to, quote, the quietest
square inch of land in the United States.
8
9
You can
And I just think that that
Secondly, in regard to the Olympic National Park,

which is in my backyard here, I don't have the exact wording,
10
but in their regs there is an intent to protect the park in
11
general from noise pollution.
12
"Soundscape Management" within the park, and I just think
13
this adding more Growlers is just absolutely contradictory to
14
that, very contrary to that.
15
management policy.
16
Park, but I have that information.
17
That's probably the end.
They have a category called
So that's Olympic National Park
I'm not representing Olympic National
18
19
***
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
2701 L
'
P
h
S
T
d
S
W
98368
d
3564
6
1
I'
'
EM f
W
l
I l
l
5
***
6
7
My name is
Navy, Retired.
Washington.
10
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
, United States
Nordland,
I have absolutely no objection to increasing the
11
number of Growler type aircraft at Whidbey.
12
location that is in the bounce pattern from Coupeville.
13
Whether they're doing north- or south-end operations, I'm
14
going to get exhaust pipe noise from any of those aircraft,
15
and it's just a bounce pattern.
16
the noise level.
17
as I can remember, and that's since 1969 when I first arrived
18
at Whidbey Island.
19
but, you know, it's a noise level that is nonimpacting as far
20
as I'm concerned.
21
taking place, but that's all.
22
I live in a
There's nothing unique about
It's something that's been going on as long
So I moved a little bit farther away,
I realize there's a jet aircraft operation
I also recognize the fact that many of the people I
23
see in attendance here tonight are individuals that I have
24
recognized that virtually negatively comment on any
25
governmental operation that's proposed that's new.
I'm
3564
7
1
trying to think of something else I can say that's judicious
and -- well, we call them CAVE, Citizens Against Virtually
Everything.
these things.
that are without foundation, and I personally, considering my
background, am offended by a lot of them because of their
mindless blatherings just to be obstructionists.
But many of them do not have an open mind about

They will generate arguments and complaints
That's it.
9
***
10
11
l S
12
13
d h
14
fl
15
I f
16
17
l l f
ll
18
19
ld
20
21
22
ll
23
l
h
l b
'
24
25
O
f
'
fl
3565
23
1
2
3
ld f
f l
l k
l
h
l
I
4
5
l 36
6
7
8
***
(b)(6)
9
10
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
11
Well, I'm particularly annoyed at the process that
12
the Navy and the Forest Service have engaged in prior to this
13
extension of the scoping process, that that big poster there,
14
"Your input matters."
15
opposite of credibility -- to the information that is
16
presented to us.
17
been more involved and included and welcomed into the
18
process.
19
are likely to be and really are only listening to us now
20
because they got caught.
21
And, frankly, it lends -- what is the
If our input had mattered, we would have
But clearly they have a good idea what our opinions
That's all.
22
23
***
24
25
9 2 J l
I '
l
W
T ff
P
f f
3566
20
1
2
3
l h
d
d
l l f
f
lf
d
h
4
5
6
7
***
My name is
enough, that's good.
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
If that's
I am here to help bring a voice to the meeting in
10
11
which I protest the use of the Growler jets in such large
12
numbers and the electromagnetic exercise that they supposedly
13
will be carrying out.
14
potentially dangerous not only to people but to the animals
15
that are wild in the forest.
16
better use of these airplanes would be to map the coastlines
17
that are being influenced by global warming.
18
flights that have been proposed will actually contribute to
19
global warming by the excess amount of carbon dioxide that
20
they emit.
21
stay at the base and contemplate what damage they are doing
22
to the environment by flying all these extra flights.
23
The electromagnetic field is
It seems to me that a much
A much better use of the airplanes would be to
I think that would be it.
24
25
The number of
***
3567
22
1
ll
2
3
'
f
4
5
***
6
7
is spelled(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
address is
initial
(b)(6)
, Port Townsend, Washington 98368.
My e-mail
(b)(6)
10
I have already submitted a written e-mail regarding
11
the electromagnetic war games in the Olympic National Forest.
12
Now I am expressing my concerns about the desired increase of
13
36 additional Growler jets from the base in Whidbey Island.
14
I have listened to several recordings of the jets
15
taking off and sometimes flying at low elevation.
16
is so loud, and I understand the decibels are beyond the
17
level that is safe, especially for the ears of children.
18
seems that there might be better places to expand the Navy
19
base, the Navy Air Force base, air base, whatever -- I don't
20
know what they call it -- and do not impact so many
21
residents.
22
Townsend, but the level and especially at Whidbey Island is
23
in truth harmful.
24
could leave, but they can't sell their homes.
25
The sound
It
Many of us can hear the planes over Port
People who have homes there wish they
What else to say.
I'm good at the science of all
3567
23
1
of this.
I just wish the Navy could find other ways to train
their pilots that do not have as harmful results.
like to say more about the workings in the forest, but I
understand we have to restrict our comments to the proposed
additional 36 Growlers.
I would
Thank you very much for addressing these problems.
6
7
8
***
9
10
W ll
I'
13
14
59 T
"Y
"
16
l
f
If
b
18
19
20
21
22
23
***
24
25
15
17
11
12
9 2 J l
I '
l
W
T ff
P
f f
3568
21
1
2
My name is
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
and I live in
Port Townsend.
Actually, the only concern that I can see here is
if there is a flight path that's interfering with the
tranquility of Port Townsend.
very helpful if they could scoot it over a little bit and
help to help minimize that.
8
9
And it seems like it would be
Anything else I've heard about the EMF seems to be

hyped in the media, and the actual truth of it, as far as I'm
10
able to ascertain at this point, is that it's just an
11
exercise to locate -- an exercise in locating radar in
12
placements.
13
like a death ray that's going on, and people are alarmed.
14
one of the comments I would have for them is to get some
15
better public relations people involved and let them know
16
that it does not appear to be of any particular danger that I
17
can see.
18
And the way the media is portraying it is more

So
That's all.
19
20
***
21
I'
22
23
d
f
24
25
f P
I
I f
35
W '
I f
ll
W '
ll
d
l
'
3569
25
1
2
3
4
5
***
(b)(6)
6
7
Well, one of the big concerns I have is the loss of
the value of the Olympic Rain Forest as a World Heritage
Center.
I understand that this is something that's probably
10
going to happen, you know.
The planes need to fly, this work
11
needs to be done, and I can understand and appreciate that.
12
But it would be great if there was something that could be
13
done to mitigate the loss of the tranquility of such a
14
fantastic -- I'll say it again -- World Heritage Site.
15
any consideration given to maybe lessening the impact would
16
be greatly appreciated by just about anyone and everybody,
17
including everything that's living out there.
18
to be some sort of impact on them.
So
There's bound
19
And that's all part of the ecosystem.
20
just -- also we're part of that ecosystem, the people that
21
are out there hiking and backpacking and people who come from
22
all over the world to witness the beauty there, and to turn
23
it into something else is of great concern.
24
time you understand that the work has to be done.
25
That's all.
And that's
And at the same
3570
26
1
***
2
3
4
My name is
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
My last name is spelled
And we live at
(b)(6)
Chimacum, 98325.
My comment is in regard to the high aircraft noise
levels that we experience in Chimacum.
And I recognize that
we are on the flight path of various different aircraft, at
times private, at times commercial, at times Coast Guard, and
at times more powerful jets which likely originate on Whidbey
10
Island.
And it is the latter, the loudest jets which disturb
11
our peace the most, occasionally waking me in the middle of
12
the night, occasionally stopping our conversations and
13
interrupting our activities through the day.
14
the number of these jets would result in an increase in such
15
interruptions, and I strongly oppose increasing the jet
16
traffic related to the Whidbey airfield.
17
I think that's all.
An increase in
18
19
***
20
21
22
23
24
25
3571
8
1
I'd l
I f
'
'
f
'
U
8
9
10
11
12
K
13
14
15
W
ff
16
17
l
l
l
d
'
l
l
l
ll
h
h
18
19
20
21
22
23
***
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
And I guess, since I still need to educate myself,
24
I don't know if there's -- I understand there's a website I
25
can go to to find out about what the proposal is for the
3571
9
1
Growler planes, and I understand that an EIS is being done
for that.
from the electromagnetic field issue since they go together.
They're now separated.
there, I couldn't find somewhere that I could go and see what
has already been done, an environmental statement or anything
on the electromagnetic.
even though I believe they are integrally connected.
question is, why were they separated?
But I don't understand why the -- it was separated
And when I talked to somebody in
You can only address the Growler,

So my
I guess that's it, why were they separated?
10
11
12
***
13
14
15
I l
W
l
17
PTS
19
l L
l @ l
'
l
d
l
l
12
I'
21
22
23
24
EIS
25
P
360 6 3 3173
I'
I
D
18
C
66
98368
16
20
l
l
3572
9
1
I
B
'
'
ld
d
'
h
I
d
I
EIS
7
8
9
10
11
12
***
13
14
My name is
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
I live at
15
Townsend, Washington 98368.
16
and my e-mail is
17
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
middle initial
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Port
My phone number is
That's
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
So my comments are I'm a maritime trade
18
professional, who in addition to my work as a sailmaker,
19
wherein I employee 12 people, I'm active on the Board of
20
Directors of Sound Experience Schooner Adventures, as well as
21
a founding board member of the Wooden Boat Foundation and
22
Festival.
23
I urge the Navy, request that the Navy conduct an
24
EIS that includes the economic impacts on our region that
25
relies on ecotourism, that relies on businesses like my own
3572
10
1
that are here for a quality of life that includes a healthy,
peaceful, and quiet environment.
And I also urge that they answer this question.
Since the Navy has four locations within easy reach of
Whidbey Island in which to practice their electronic warfare
training, why do Growlers have to be flown over our Olympic
National Park, national forest, and why do I awaken more and
more often in the wee hours to major jet noise?
disturbing my sleep, disturbing my community and a way of
It's
10
life that I've been committed to improving and contributing
11
to since I moved to Port Townsend in 1975.
12
That's it.
13
14
***
15
16
M
S
17
D
T
A d
20
23
24
25
I'
h
f
'
l
l
ll
ld
h
21
3110 T
98368
19
18
22
f
l
'
3573
26
1
***
A d
ll d
t 2310 W
t V ll
C
fl
ff
l
f l
I l
f
t
9
d
f
C
l
l
ll
h
11
12
10
98325
5
6
ll
13
14
15
16
l
I
ff
l
W
17
18
19
20
21
22
***
(b)(6)
address is
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
And my
Port Townsend, 98368.
So I live and work in the North Beach area, and in
23
the last few years the Growlers have made my house rumble and
24
my windows rattle, sometimes until 12:30 in the morning.
25
has caused us to not be able to go to sleep.
It
It has caused
3573
27
1
us great distress to think about how our tax dollars could be
spent instead of how they are being spent.
promoting war, we could be looking after education and health
care and taking care of the populace of this country.
Instead of
And we could stop making enemies all over the place
that we have to kill after we make the enemies because
they're so mad at us that they want to do harm to us.
only been at it in the Middle East for 80 years trying to
take over their land because of all the resources, at least
We've
10
in Africa.
There's nothing legitimate about U.S. policy
11
anywhere.
12
world, it's hegemony, it's imperialism.
13
When people do the same things that we do, they don't get a
14
pass.
All the military bases that we have all over the

That's all it is.
We pass ourselves all the time.
15
I'm concerned that the thing we're most exceptional
16
at -- I did notice that the President said that he believes
17
in our exceptionalism with every fiber of his being, and what
18
we're most exceptional at is hypocrisy.
19
incarceration too.
20
We're doing better than everybody on that count.
21
what else.
22
globe, and it's the biggest CO2 emitter on the globe.
23
those we're exceptional at too.
24
25
We're really good at
We're great at the military budget.

Let's see,
The military is the biggest oil consumer on the
Thank you for taking this.
So
3574
10
1
A d I
I l
h
f
G
N
l P
fl
Ol
l f
10
f l
f l f
I '
l
l f
I'
11
12
13
14
***
15
16
My name is
(b)(6)
17
(b)(6)
, and my address is
(b)(6)

And my first comment is I'm upset that they're
18
having this in the middle of the day where only probably a
19
third of the people -- I had to close my store in order to be
20
able to come here and comment.
21
meetings are held in the evenings, which gives people a
22
chance to have a little dinner and then come out.
23
one of my first things.
24
25
And usually these kind of
So that's
The other thing is I am very concerned about the

noise.
It has barely even started, and I work at home on my
3574
11
1
property and I'm a farmer.
space and especially when I'm outside, my dog has put her
paws over her ears just with the few planes and helicopters
that are going over now.
something that they've just announced on national public
radio is not working, at least with ISIS, I don't understand.
They have a perfectly good airfield that they've been using
for many years in Idaho, and to destroy the Olympic National
Forest and to destroy the pristene wilderness here and the
10
small community that's here so they can practice something
11
that's already proven not to work is absurd to me.
12
And the noise decimal in my work
And if they increase this for
And I'm also concerned about the animals and the
13
plants that these -- the fumes from these jets and the chem
14
trails will release and help destroy our environment.
15
So that's pretty much all I have to say.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
***
3575
1
1
Scoping Meeting for the EIS for the
EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Port Townsend, Washington
--ooOoo--
7
8
(The disclosure statement was read to each commentor.)
9
***
10
11
It's
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
with a (b)(6)
12
address is
13
H-a-i-n-e-s, Alaska, which is AK 99827.
14
(b)(6)
and my
Haines, which is spelled
I have a bunch of questions.
I would like to know
15
what studies have been done regarding potential sonic booms
16
by the Growler jets.
17
been done regarding effects on people, domestic animals, wild
18
animals, including wild birds, relative to hearing loss and
19
other health issues.
20
done, if they haven't been done, and when that's going to
21
happen.
22
I want to know what noise studies have
And if these studies are going to be
I would also like to know that if studies have been
23
done, if there's, for instance, three Growler jets in
24
formation, how much noise that would make at 1200 feet.
25
also how that would relate to impacts on people, animals,
And
3575
2
1
birds.
I would like to know if there are studies about
noise by real jets, real actual jets, including all of their
gear and use of all of their gear rather than just studies of
various parts of jets that are not actually out doing actual
flying.
I would like to know if there is any flyovers that
will be happening over the Olympic National Park, and if so,
what kind of studies have been done about that relative to
10
park values, quiet, where campers are in wilderness.
11
I want to know what kind of studies there are
12
relative to property values and the decline of property
13
values if jet noise is increased and happened over areas.
14
I think that's it.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
***
3576
8
1
I'd l
I f
'
'
f
'
U
bl
If
'
9
S
10
'
11
12
***
(b)(6)
13
14
(b)(6)
Another question:
Why aren't the cumulative
15
effects of increased Growler jets and all their ramifications
16
being analyzed cumulatively and in conjunction with other
17
planned and related activities such as the electronic
18
radiation warfare testing or whatever it's more formally
19
called?
20
21
22
23
24
25
***
3577
12
1
2
EIS
G
'
t
'
Ol
l
I l
7
8
l
G
82
ll?
ft b
d EIS
f
ll
d h
9
10
11
12
13
Th
C
16
OLF
l
l
I l
ll
14
15
ll
OLF C
f
N
ll G
EIS
W
N S W
ll
17
18
19
***
20
21
22
It's
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Port Townsend, Washington.

I object strongly to the harmful noise pollution
23
and other effects of the Navy's Growler jet planes
24
originating from Whidbey Island.
25
receiving public comments, I believe the Navy should respect
During this time of
3577
13
1
the serious nature of concerns by citizens, businesses, and
government officials, and abort training flights that impact
Coupeville, Port Townsend, and other nearby areas.
Then I have a heading that's called "My Personal
Experience."
overlooking the ferry terminal.
the Growler jet maneuvers.
intrusive and distracting.
I live in Port Townsend on the bluff

I have direct experience of
When these jets fly, I find them
This past summer I taught a course at Fort Worden.
10
When the Growlers were active, we had to stop our
11
conversations until the planes had passed.
12
classes in my home, and there too we have to pause when
13
Growler jets fly by.
14
aircraft, except for the occasional emergency helicopter.
15
I also teach
This situation is not true for other
Moreover, I cannot sleep well when they fly at
16
night.
17
open.
18
problem.
19
purposes of quiet living in a beautiful part of the country.
20
It is worse in the warmer months when our windows are

Whatever the season, though, the noise pollution is a
I specifically moved here from an urban area for
I have hearing loss and do not wish to jeopardize
21
further my ability to hear as I age.
22
have noise sensitivity due to fibromyalgia.
23
means that certain humming sounds are magnified louder than
24
what they really are.
25
is one of them.
In addition, I also
This condition
Unfortunately, the Growler jet noise
3577
14
1
I also believe that my property value is diminished
as a result of overexposure to Navy operations.
largest west coast munitions site is directly across from me
with its attendant risks and light pollution.
to look like a large airport, and now we experience the war
of noise pollution from Whidbey Island.
The Navy's
It has grown
And a new heading called "Too Few Answers."
does it stop?
takes time to recognize the accumulated impacts.
Where
When things are incremental, it sometimes

At what
10
point does it transform from sound to unacceptable noise?
11
How can an ordinary citizen like me have a say against the
12
powerful Defense Department?
13
together to reach accord so that our nation's security is
14
assured, our geographies depending economically on government
15
bases are healthy, and the well-being of our own lives,
16
animals, plants, and the elements are optimal and not
17
denigrated by Navy operations?
18
too few answers.
19
20
In what ways can we work
Too many questions chasing
Now I have a new heading, "Other Concerns."
I have
other concerns to voice as well.
21
One:
There is scientific evidence of the
22
correlation to hearing loss, insomnia, heart issues, anxiety,
23
and other health problems.
24
for children can raise aggressive tendencies and unhealthful
25
behaviors.
One study showed chronic noise
3577
15
1
Two:
A long trail of serious complaints follows in
the wake of every other part of the U.S. and the world where
Navy jets fly and make noise.
Key West, and Japan, to name several.
new problem.
issues.
areas.
8
9
Examples are Hawaii, Colorado,

This issue is not a
The Navy has had many years to rectify these
Instead, it seems to export the problem to new
Three:
Whidbey Island, the San Juans, and Port
Townsend are retirement meccas and key tourist destinations,
10
hardly the kinds of places you would expect the government to
11
introduce Growlers, expand operations, or fly.
12
look out 25 years, the coastline of Puget Sound is expected
13
to be one of the fastest-growing regions in population
14
certainly in this state and in the country.
15
complaints will only grow.
16
Four:
As we
The number of
Our animals, plants, and the elements do not
17
have a direct voice.
18
many animals have delicate hearing tolerances.
19
affect them far more than they do for humans.
20
long-term consequences of vibrations on the landscape?
21
effect do jets have on the quality of our waters that are
22
already stressed?
23
electromagnetic radiation?
24
Five:
25
Science tells us, for example, that

Loud noises
What are the
What
And what do we really know factually about
Jet noise is a long-standing controversy.
Surely there are new technologies that can cap noise and
3577
16
1
vibration.
We can not look at progress purely for the sake
of progress.
considered when making choices, including the costs of noise
pollution and electromagnetic radiation to humankind and
creation.
All of the ramifications must be fully
Six:
Commercial airplanes and other automobiles
have noise restrictions, as do city ordinances and apartment
leases.
an exception.
10
I do not understand why the Navy is permitted to be

It seems as if the Navy should live by the
same standards as others do.
11
Seven:
The pristine Olympic National Park, state
12
forest, Ebey's Preserve dominate our area.
13
protected by numerous presidents and federal govermental
14
policies and are natural resources that once denigrated
15
cannot be reclaimed.
16
however minimal, is too much.
17
18
They have been
I would argue that any adverse impact,
I would like for my comments to be read, reviewed,

and considered.
19
Sincerely, me.
20
21
***
22
23
24
25
Ch
T
l W ll
l l
I l
W
A
'
l
3578
17
1
T
l
d f
ff
'
t f
k
f
h k
I'
5
S
7
8
9
10
11
'
12
13
h
f
'
l
B
'
f
k
d
S
14
'
15
16
17
18
19
***
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
I want to know -- my question is, this was planned
20
by the government for more than two years, and why weren't we
21
filled in before everything was closed up?
22
opening it again for comment, but I don't -- I'm not --
23
what's the word -- I'm not feeling like our comments are
24
going to be heard.
25
You're now
Is my comment going to be heard?
And my concern for the native peoples, not all of
3578
18
1
them are gamers.
Some of them don't have any money at all.
They're up in arms and they don't know what to do.
growling over their territory is not going to help our
situation.
in turmoil over this.
Things
Part of my family is Native American, and they're
And I would like to know what is going to be done
6
7
to not disrupt people's livelihoods.
They are the people
that are going to be in the places that you say you're going
to be, getting food.
They have food stamps and they have
10
their artwork that they sell, and then they go out and hunt
11
for the rest of their food.
12
just because somebody is going to play tiddledywinks.
13
And they're not going to stop
And I'm really concerned about the health of
14
children, especially children, the chem trails and all the
15
exhaust that happens.
16
during the day there are already airlines flying over our
17
houses, and all of this builds up, and I really don't want
18
any more.
19
We already have -- two to three times
20
21
22
23
24
25
***
3579
28
1
***
2
3
It's
(b)(6)
and it's
(b)(6)
Townsend, Washington 98368.
I'm very concerned about the quality of life being
disrupted on the Olympic Peninsula.
wildlife and the birds.
very, very quiet.
of stressful, you know.
happening, something wrong.
10
in Port
I live outside of town and it's
And when the planes do go over, it's kind
the world really isn't.
11
I'm concerned about the
You worry that something is

It's a reminder of how peaceful
You know what I mean?
And, anyway, I haven't learned much about the
12
actual testing or electromagnetic testing they'll be doing,
13
but it doesn't sound like something that I want to live near.
14
My family backpacks across the Olympics and we go out to the
15
coast.
16
like most of the people I know that live here are here for
17
that reason and for that quality of life.
18
the way I understand it, I think would greatly disrupt that.
19
That's kind of it, you know.
20
We enjoy solitude and nature, wildlife.
And it seems
And this project,
I worry about it.
I think we have reminders of war and death and
21
disruption too many times a day, and to have planes flying
22
over while I'm gardening or camping out in my front yard
23
doesn't -- I don't look forward to that.
24
25
Thank you.
3580
21
1
2
M
P
ll
f
l
l f l
h t I
fl
'
f P
ld
I'
ld
l
b
f
I'
'
11
12
EMF
10
14
13
I l
3
4
l
A d
h
I
l
'
15
d
ld
f
l
16
17
18
19
20
***
21
I'm a resident of Port Townsend, 35 years.
22
started a business here.
23
for Port Townsend.
24
meeting.
25
with the facts.
We've
We've economically done all we can
I feel completely insulted by this
I thought I was coming to a meeting to be presented

I feel it's rather a divisive thing, it's so
3580
22
1
confusing.
And I hope that the Navy will present a succinct
presentation to the community because it's very vital to each
of us that live here.
That's all.
5
***
6
7
8
9
I
10
11
12
13
36
Ol
b
l G
14
15
ll
d
f
h ld
I
N
'
ll
21
25
20
24
19
23
18
22
l F
l
fl
l
l
ff
16
17
M
T
f
h
f l
l
P
d
l
ll
P
t Wh db
I l
3581
4
1
2
I
U
d S
'
ll
d
l
ll
6
7
8
I
h
ld l
ld b
d f
11
12
I'
13
h
W
l
d
'
10
ld l k
l
k
h
d
'
b
d
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
***
My name is (b)(6)
(b)(6)
and
(b)(6)

My special concern is the electronic warfare and
23
EMF field generation.
And I read a Navy press release that
24
was an official Navy press release that said that the fields
25
generated would be strong enough to keep metal to a
3581
5
1
temperature high enough to induce burns and also strong
enough to cause direct burns from the EMF fields themselves
without the intermediary of heating metal first.
essence of that, as I took it, would be that the fields would
be strong enough to heat weapons that people were carrying in
an electronic warfare situation and also strong enough to
disable people directly by the field strength itself.
And the
Now, why this is of special concern to me is that
the area that this was going to be practiced in was an area
10
that I hike in.
11
wilderness areas in the Olympic National Forest can't be
12
fenced, can't be posted.
13
testing practice area where you can see what's going on.
14
Those wilderness areas are very densely forested, and people,
15
even with advanced detection methods, are easily missed.
16
I hike in the wilderness areas.
Those
It's not like a water, marine
So I'm very concerned about my personal safety, and
17
I'm not going to give up using my national wilderness areas
18
to let someone practice killing people in my backyard.
19
can do it in places that I'm not hiking.
20
over the top to me and I'm very concerned about it.
21
that's the essence of why I'm here.
22
answers to that.
23
They
But that's just

So
And I would like some
And so far, wherever I've gone, they speak of
24
noise.
I could care less about noise compared to my personal
25
safety.
And noise in Port Townsend is going to be less of an
3581
6
1
issue here, I think.
issue.
concerned.
That's primarily a Whidbey Island
I'm concerned about the EM fields, obviously very
So thank you.
5
***
6
7
8
9
10
11
f G
12
13
'
'
l
17
18
22
23
24
25
I '
b
S
'
1969
l
l
I
l
'
'
I'
I'
'
d
I l
19
ll
f
T
16
C
d
15
21
I l
14
20
l
h
I f
f
'
3582
11
1
d I'
ll
I'
d h l
f
d
l
ISIS
Id h
'
'
Ol
10
ll
11
'
12
15
'
14
f
f
13
'
l
A d I'
f
l
ll
S
f
l
'
ll I
16
17
18
19
20
***
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Coupeville, Washington.
And I have two questions.
The first one is, why
21
are not the electromagnetic warfare training operations at
22
OLF Coupeville being included in the EIS being prepared for
23
activities at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island?
24
25
Any my next question is, why aren't all Growler

operations at OLF Coupeville and at AS Whidbey Island being
3582
12
1
addressed in the EIS instead of bootstrapping in the first 82
Growlers for which there's never been any environmental
analysis at all?
And thirdly, why isn't the electromagnetic warfare
practice range on the Olympic coast being included in the
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island EIS since the activities out
on the coast are directly and functionally related to the
Growler aircraft based and hoping to be based at NASWI, Naval
Air Station Whidbey Island?
So I'd like the EIS to address
10
the electronic warfare range on the Olympic coast since it's
11
functionally related to operations at NASWI.
12
The electromagnetic emitter and operations at OLF
13
Coupeville need to be included, and the scope of the EIS
14
needs to include all operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey
15
Island and particularly all Growler operations at NAS Whidbey
16
and OLF Coupeville.
17
Thank you.
18
19
***
20
21
22
I '
S
T
I
ff
24
l
f
W
206 P
f l
ll
23
25
'
I l
I
l
D
l
f
3583
18
1
2
S
T
'
'
ll
'
4
5
I
ld l
l '
l
h
h
f
'
ll
f
12
b
I'
14
ll
l h
ll
15
W
l
d
ll
'
f
ll
16
h
'
b d
13
17
10
11
l
ld
fl
d I
ll
'
18
19
ll I
20
21
22
***
I'm actually making a statement for the City of
23
Port Townsend.
24
make a statement or comments.
The Mayor has just left and has asked me to
(b)(6)
25
So my name is
(b)(6)
3583
19
1
and I'm a City Councilor with the City of Port Townsend.
first I'd like to comment on the process.
So
While we appreciate the Navy coming out, I've had
many citizens tell me that this is a less than satisfactory
process because the people who are answering questions don't
ask -- don't answer questions about the entire project but
rather just in pieces.
conquer" several times because there's no one person that is
standing up and taking questions and answering them for the
I've heard the term "divide and
10
public.
11
Washington state -- have said that it's much too loud for
12
them to hear the Navy spokespeople.
13
process and public meeting is in order.
14
Several of the people -- we are the oldest county in
We believe that a better
Second comment is in regard to the impacts of noise
15
on our community.
16
outside of the zone of noise impact, in fact, the City
17
Council gets repeated phone calls and e-mails about the
18
impact on people's sleep and the debilitating effects of the
19
flyovers on their lives.
20
Though the Navy is stating that we are
Next, a comment on the fact that the Navy is not
21
doing a full process on the electromagnetic war games out on
22
the west end together with the Growler expansion.
23
that the EIS should be for the complete, cumulative impact of
24
the entire project, electromagnetic war games as well as the
25
expansion of the Growlers from Whidbey Island.
We believe
3583
20
1
We believe that the health and welfare of our
citizens and our wildlife are at risk and that this is a
direct opposite of what the national park is supposed to mean
to the citizens of the United States.
Thank you.
6
7
***
8
9
I
10
11
12
h l
dl
13
14
15
16
18
fl
19
fl
d b
Th
ll
ll
f
ld
l
h
fl
ll
24
25
l b l
d
21
23
20
22
17
***
fl
3584
3
1
2
l
G
h t
6
7
f l
dl
h
I
Ol
l P
'
10
11
12
l f
"S
ll
M
13
"
G
T
h
ll
h
k
l
d I
14
15
16
17
18
19
***
(b)(6)
20
21
(b)(6)
22
(b)(6)
last name is
(b)(6)
That's Port Townsend, Washington 98368.

My question is, why do we even need the Growlers
23
that we have?
What function do they perform for our national
24
security?
25
equals more than all the military budgets of every other
I know that the United States military budget
3584
4
1
country.
And I do know that there's a job shortage in the
United States, and the military is a good option for many
young people these days; but pouring all that money into the
military, into military equipment and military payroll,
cooking up potential enemies to defend against is a
self-fulfilling project.
I would like to know why we need the Growlers we
have and what would be the need for more Growlers, which
undeniably impact our community here in Port Townsend.
When
10
one goes over, it's a shock.
11
Growler pilots.
12
Growlers and would like to know why that's seen to be
13
necessary.
14
peace-promoting job, jobs, but this is what their work is,
15
and so -- bless their hearts.
16
their position, really.
17
And my nephew and niece are
And so I'm against a buildup of more
I wish my nephew and niece had a good,
There are a lot of people in
Thank you.
18
19
***
20
P O
21
22
23
24
25
M
EMF f
h
d I
ff
l N
l
l
N
l
f
3585
7
1
2
3
ll
E
l
ll
B t
ll
ff
C VE
h
'
ll
t h
d
d
d I
l
ll
8
9
***
10
(b)(6)
11
12
(b)(6)
My other concern is financial and how we spend our
13
treasure as a country.
When we buy a gun, we want to shoot
14
it.
15
situation.
16
people with a hand in the arms industry who stand to benefit
17
from tax money, our tax money, our treasures being spent on
18
arms.
19
people of this country, our education system.
20
go to college to live in this 21st century.
When we buy a jet, we want to fly it in a real-life war

I feel that our country is being controlled by
And I believe our tax money should be spent on the

Kids need to
21
Our military budget is bloated, and we're spreading
22
our armaments all over the globe and increasing the conflicts
23
in the countries where we leave our armaments.
24
money, my tax money is paying for that, and I object to that.
25
I don't want my tax money spent that way.
Our tax
3585
8
1
So I'd like to say no at every point I possibly can
to spending more money on armaments and weapons.
I feel that
the people who own the armaments and military supplies,
companies that support soldiers overseas, they're the same
people who -- they're war profiteers, and they're the same
people who object to having their companies in the United
States because they have to pay more taxes, they have to pay
a reasonable wage.
estimation.
If -- you know, that's unpatriotic in my
So I guess that's all I want to say.
10
11
12
***
13
14
15
W
ff
16
17
l
l
l
d
l
l
d
d
19
20
22
23
24
25
***
l
ll
f
h
18
21
'
3586
23
1
2
3
ld f
f l
l k
l
h
I
b
l
I
4
5
l 36
6
7
8
***
9
10
L
P
11
h
13
59 T
98368
I'
"Y
"
16
If
b
18
l
B
d
l
l
d
l d d
19
20
21
22
23
***
24
25
15
17
W
W ll
12
14
It's
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
last name (b)(6)
(b)(6)
3586
24
1
There is a common sense of -- a common sense needs
to prevail.
Navy's project to have more Growlers and electronic warfare
going to benefit the community or impact it negatively?
answer to that question is obvious.
degree.
Sometimes facts obfuscate the obvious.
Is the
The
It's just a matter of
It will impact the community negatively.

This is an area that exists because the community
members for decades have protected it and preserved it.
holds the oldest national park in the country.
It
It has a
10
tourist industry that is based on people wanting to come to
11
its environmental beauty and tranquility and experience that.
12
This proposed project by the Navy will damage the state and
13
particularly the northwest peninsula economically and
14
environmentally.
15
will not be good for the animals here, it will not be good
16
for the oceans here.
17
It will not be good for the humans here, it
The people making the decisions are not locals.
18
They do not understand necessarily how precious this piece of
19
United States is.
20
they care about its environmental sustainability.
21
no way that more aircraft emitting more CO2 into the
22
atmosphere, creating more noise over the country is going to
23
be helpful to the community or to the country.
24
25
The people in this area are here because

There is
The electronic warfare can be practiced through

simulation that would have practically no negative impact.
3586
25
1
More aircraft are not necessary to meet the goals of the Navy
for our national protection.
Period.
The end.
4
5
***
W ll
8
9
Ol
ld H
ld b
13
d
f
l
f
fl
d I
B
'
T
11
14
10
12
I'll
ld b
h
S
15
16
17
l d
18
d
h
'
Th
'
20
'
ll
24
25
l
ll
ld
h
l
'
21
23
19
22
'
f
d
3587
16
1
ll
ll
f
f ll
l d
5
S
I d
7
8
9
10
11
12
S
f
Eb
T
'
Ol
Th
d f
15
b
l
l
l
16
17
l P
13
14
l
I
ld l k
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
***
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
I live in Port
Townsend, Washington.
A couple questions.
First, why can't they find
somewhere other than over our national parks and national
3587
17
1
forests?
To me, those should be out of bounds, you know, off
limits for military games.
use the national park and forest for, you know, hiking and
recreating, and I enjoy the peace of it.
the nature there.
That's a big concern of mine.
I'm concerned about
Second one is, what studies have they done to
6
7
assure me that everything they do in the forest there -- even
though their electromagnetic thing isn't part of this
meeting, it's connected to the Growler jets that are flying
10
over.
11
me that they're not going to harm any little bit of nature
12
that's there?
13
for, for preserving nature as nature is, you know.
14
guess that's my big question.
15
What are they -- what studies have they done to assure
Because that's what those parks are set aside

So I
I guess that's it.
16
17
***
18
19
24
25
L
l
f
f ll d
22
23
20
21
l
f
'
I'
I
I d
't
'
'
I'
3588
2
1
2
ld l
l
ll
l d
ll
ll
fl
7
8
l
f
5
6
I
ll b
ld l
Ol
fl
N
l P
f
l
11
12
13
10
f
l
14
15
16
17
18
***
(b)(6)
My concern is about the noise of Growlers, adding
19
even more of them.
20
based there.
21
people who live much closer than I do, and basically I'm
22
concerned about all those same things.
23
values, kids in school, noise, in that regard.
24
25
I know there are many that are already
I've read various comments and talked with
They are property
But I have two additional things to add.
One is
that there is a spot on the west side of the Olympics that
3588
3
1
has been designated the quietest place in America.
Google the quietest square inch in the United States and get
information about this work that was done and recognized
about ten years ago at Earth Day.
is such a contrast to what it is that the Growlers do, how
much noise they provide so close to, quote, the quietest
square inch of land in the United States.
8
9
You can
And I just think that that
Secondly, in regard to the Olympic National Park,

which is in my backyard here, I don't have the exact wording,
10
but in their regs there is an intent to protect the park in
11
general from noise pollution.
12
"Soundscape Management" within the park, and I just think
13
this adding more Growlers is just absolutely contradictory to
14
that, very contrary to that.
15
management policy.
16
Park, but I have that information.
17
That's probably the end.
They have a category called
So that's Olympic National Park
I'm not representing Olympic National
18
19
***
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
2701 L
'
P
h
S
T
d
S
W
98368
d
3589
-----Original Message----(b)(6)
From:
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 12:17 PM
To: NAVFAC LANT VAQ ops EIS
Subject: Re: EA-18G EIS
Once again I am submitting my comments for the NASWI EIS. Please see my comments below for the
original EIS. The Navy must address how it intends to mitigate the presence and expansion of Growler
operations on our communities. One question not specifically asked below, is if the Navy/ US
Government will purchase affected properties that are not able to be sold?
(b)(6)
Sent from my iPad

(b)(6)
> On Dec 27, 2013, at 12:34 PM

wrote:
>
> To whom it may concern,
>
> In reference to the above-referenced EIS, I would like to add my comments and become a party of
record. Our family has lived in the Central Whidbey area for the past 20 years. Until the arrival of the
EA-18G we have never been as negatively affected. Navy leadership has been conspicuously silent and
unresponsive with negative community issues.
>
> As the previous EIS relating to bringing the "Growler" to NASWI was woefully inaccurate and
misrepresented operations and operational impacts now being encountered, I would like this EIS to
objectively (and honestly) address the following adverse conditions now affecting the Whidbey Island
community:
>
> NOISE AND FLIGHT PATTERNS
> Contrary to the Navy's assurances, the noise levels created by the Growlers are obviously louder and
more irritating than the Prowler as perceived by the human body. The Navy is using computer modeling
which presents sound levels consistently lower than those detected by real-time acoustic testing. This
raises red flags and infers an effort to lessen the noise created by the Growler's operation. How is the
Navy going to reduce the Growler's noise impact, other than time-weighted averaging (which works in
theory only, not in the real physical world that humans exist)?
>
> The flight patterns of the Growler have expanded outside the published flight path mapping. In my
calls to the Operations desk this deviation has been met with a variety of explanations, ranging from
"there is no change" to "it's just the new pilots".
>
> HEALTH IMPACTS
> This EIS needs to address the adverse impacts to human health and well-being of the children and
adults living within the operational areas of the Growler. What will be done to mitigate sleep-pattern
disruption to our citizens? My job requires me to be just as alert as Growler/Prowler flight personnel. As
my day begins at 4am, this is not possible with OLF flights lasting until midnight or 2am (2012). Citizen
groups have also expressed health concerns ranging from cardiac to mental health and learning
difficulties in children.
3589
>
> COMMUNITY PROPERTY VALUES
> Prior to the arrival of the Growler, the Central Whidbey community was the "gem" of the island as a
highly-desireable area. Now with the adverse conditions associated with Growler operations, property
values have dropped, rendering properties virtually impossible to sell. In the meantime, Island County
continues to assess properties in affected areas at rates not representing real-world conditions. The
Navy needs to address how to mitigate the decline of our community property values due to the
Growler's operations.
>
> SAFETY
> Citizen groups have pointed out that the OLF site does not meet current safety requirements. I am not
familiar with the existing short-comings, but imagine they would be related to runway conditions, lack of
water supply for firefighting operations, and land-uses of areas of areas within flight operations, e.g.
neighborhoods, businesses, schools, parks. What are the deficiencies, and how is the Navy meeting
them?
>
> COMPLAINT RESOLUTION
> Currently, citizens utilizing the phone number for filing complaints related to OLF operations have
encountered long waits, no answers; and when answered, personnel ranging from polite, to indifferent,
to surly. No resolution is publicized despite claims that each complaint is reviewed.
> The Navy needs to address how it will handle citizen concerns in a transparent manner.
>
> OPTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE SITES
> The EIS must include the availability for sites in more appropriate areas less affected by noise, health,
environmental, safety, land use issues.
>
>
> COMMUNITY SOCIAL IMPACTS
> The Navy has remained virtually silent on the voiced concerns, while the presence of the Growler and
the conditions it has created have divided our community. Lines drawn along Navy personnel and
business concerns, conflict with citizens living in the Growler's area of operations.
> The EIS must address the extent of this divide and how it can be eliminated.
>
(b)(6)
> Coupeville, WA 98239
3590
3591
3592
3592
3593
3593
3595
3595
3601
3603
3627
3630
3632
3633
3633
3634
3634
3634
3634
3634
3635
3635
3635
3635
3635
3635
3635
3636
3639
3641
3643
3643
3643
3643
3643
3643
3643
3645
3648
3650
3650
3651
3652
3652
3652
3652
3652
3653
3653
3655
3655
3655
3655
3655

2014-2015 EA-18G EIS Scoping Comments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014-2015 EA-18G EIS Scoping Comments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(b)(6)

Port townsend , WA 98368

PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Port Townsend, WA 98368

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Port Hadlock, WA 98339

Port Townsend, WA 98368

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

lopez island, WA 98261

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 98261

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Friday Harbor , WA 98250

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Friday harbor, WA 98250

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Lopez Island, WA 98261

LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 98261

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

FRIDAY HARBOR, WA 98250

Lopez Island, WA 98261

LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 98261

Lopez Island, WA 98261

OAK HARBOR, WA 982778974

oak harbor, WA 98277

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Camano Island, WA 98282

North Bend, WA 98045

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Lopez Island, WA 98261

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Port Townsend , WA 98368

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Oak Harbor, WA 98277