— from Michael Welding for NAS Whidbey —
After being unable to reach agreement through extensive, in-depth consultations, the Navy has decided to terminate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) regarding a planned increased EA-18G Growler operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island. Termination of consultation is an option provided to the Federal agency under the Section 106 process, when the agency and consulting parties are unable to reach agreement on how to resolve adverse effects.
Since October 2014, the Navy has consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and local consulting parties to evaluate potential effects to historic properties resulting from the proposed increase in EA-18G Growler airfield operations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex. The Navy distributed its determination of adverse effect on June 25, 2018 and received concurrence from the SHPO on June 27, 2018.
The Navy’s determination is that indirect adverse effects to the Central Whidbey Island Historic District would result from more frequent aircraft operations. Specifically, the preferred alternative would affect the historic integrity of five landscape viewpoints within the historic district. Subsequently, the Navy initiated a series of meetings and calls with all consulting parties with the intention to reach agreement on appropriate measures to resolve the effects.
In making this decision to terminate the Section 106 consultation, the Navy has considered all measures put forth by the consulting parties and carefully evaluated the nature, scale, and scope of adverse effects on the landscape viewpoints in historic district.
Since August 2018, the Navy conducted a series of meetings with the consulting parties in this resolution phase of the Section 106 process to address ways to resolve the adverse effect on five landscape viewpoints in the historic district. Considerable time has been spent in discussions with the SHPO, consulting parties, and ACHP staff working to explain the undertaking, the Section 106 process, and to evaluate and take into consideration resolution options put forth by the Washington SHPO and all consulting parties and the public.
After careful consideration, the Navy has determined that further consultation under Section 106 will not be productive within the time available to avoid unacceptable impacts to the Navy’s defense mission. This impasse results from an unwillingness to separate concerns about historic properties from concerns about other economic and community apprehensions surrounding increased Growler flights at the OLF. The 106 process is about historic preservation and does not address other possible impacts to the community.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
So let me get this straight: The Navy is not willing to continue negotiations because it might have to reduce its plan for expansion of Growler flights. Am I reading this correctly? So rather than continue to try to reach a compromise, the Navy is just deciding to go ahead with its plans regardless of the impacts. The health impacts on people and animals, the overpowering noise, economic impacts, etc.–none of this matters, because the Navy is taking its ball and going home. As a retired elementary teacher, I can tell you that my students were more mature than the Navy personnel making this decision. Again, please correct me if I am reading this wrong; the language used seems to be intended to obfuscate the real meaning, perhaps even Orwellian? In the current political climate where the US Senate is actually looking to dial back our aid to the Saudis, who have put half the population of Yemen into starvation mode, and we might actually start to reduce our military footprint [over 800 bases worldwide, spending more than the next 6-8 countries on defense, spending more than half our discretionary revenue on the military, etc.], the Navy wants to continue to expand its program with all its adverse impacts. Do the people have no say? Is this really a democracy?
I had to re-read the attached letter to make sure I wasn’t missing anything. My takeaway is similar to David’s. Nevertheless, it’s classic military style when terminating discussion. True to form, you’re to read between the lines. That’s supposed to soften the blow though I’m sure it’s left many on Whidbey Island and in the effected communities appalled and dumbfounded. Given the stature of the parties involved and the very valid concerns raised, it’s hard to imagine there being no room for compromise. I’d be interested in reading Mr Fowler’s take on how negotiations collapsed to definitively.
This reminds me of recent hearings held on Orcas: the ostensible purpose was to gather public input about impacts in order to mitigate them, but in reality the Powers That Be were totally committed to their own plans long before the hearings were ever held.
I’m looking at you, Port Commission.
It’s much worse than this– did everyone read Rhea Miller’s Guest column in the Nov. 28 Sounder (P-6 Provide feedback for military guidebook)? Though the article in it’s entirety gave me great cause for concern it was the fourth paragraph that really took me by surprise– “Based on this guide, recent bills introduced to the Washington Legislature, and so far defeated, have been written to put the military in charge of land use planning, overriding any input from local citizens about what they want in their communities. There would be no process to hold the military accountable for the impact of it’s operations.”
It is difficult to say at this point weather it is more painful to see the debasement of the electorate and anything resembling accountability or the debasement of our beautiful English language.
The arrogance of the security establishment in this country seems to verify the fact that the most dangerous drug in the biochemical realm is testosterone, We don’t even require Chinese labs to manufacture it.
‘As previously noted, the Growlers defend NOTHING.. I hope folks are sharpening their pitchforks.
Wait a minute – COMPROMISE with the victims of the unending war machine’s cetacean-killing sonar and eardrum-splitting Growler noise is cited as “unacceptable impacts to the navy’s ‘defense mission’?”
Welcome to the horror-show version of Theater of the Absurd.
Get out of the way, you “mere” civilians and “lesser” creatures – you are expendable!
As sea level rise takes out more and more of the naval bases on the east coast, expect the Navy and Air Force’s hostile takeover of the west coast; it’s already happening with the closures of two big bases back east.
Here’s an idea for NAS Whidbey; take the growler program back to Idaho.