A citizen injunction against Growler flights has instigated a set of dueling statements from citizen activists and the Navy League.

The group Citizens of the Ebey’s Reserve (COER), along with private citizen Paula Spina, kicked things off Feb. 13 by filing a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle to roll back the EA-18G “Growler” carrier-landing practice at Outlying Field (OLF) Coupeville to its pre-2019 levels of 6,100 annual operations.

According to the motion filed by Seattle-based attorneys Bricklin and Newman on behalf of the plaintiffs, the proposed injunction would last until the court reaches a decision on the merits in a pending federal lawsuit already filed regarding the Growlers.

COER’s goal is to return the flight operations to the levels that existed prior to the U.S. Navy’s March 2019 record of decision until the court rules on challenges brought by COER and the state of Washington to the Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and record of decision under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

COER’s motion asserts the EIS was inadequate because the Navy misused the day-night noise level by failing to compare the difference between the DNL on quiet days and noisy flying days, thus masking the NEPA mandate to credibly reveal impacts.

COER also claims the Navy failed to assess noise impacts associated with the enhanced engines the Navy is retrofitting on the Growlers, and refused to validate their computer-modeled noise projections with actual on-site noise monitoring.

COER’s motion further charges the Navy with violating the National Historic Preservation Act by failing to provide substantive justification for its refusal to adopt the recommendations to protect Ebey’s Landing Historic Reserve that were advanced by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

COER board member and retired audiologist Marianne Brabanski refers to the damage to residents and visitors cited by the motion, stating, “There is overwhelming medical evidence that Growler noise is causing irreparable injury to hearing and human health.”

COER President Bob Wilbur offered his own statement: “Since 2005 the Navy has, in its exhaustive planning documents, informed the public and land-use planners that they should count on 6,100 annual operations at the OLF. Compatible development proceeded accordingly.

Now the Navy has decided to ignore its prior guidance and increase OLF operations fourfold. That cavalier misdirection cannot stand.”

The motion concludes that an injunction will protect not only local citizens of Whidbey Island, but also residents and visitors to the Olympic Peninsula and San Juan Islands.

The Oak Harbor Council of the Navy League of the United States provided a public statement in response to COER on Feb. 14, arguing that any preliminary injunction would “greatly and negatively” affect Navy training that’s vital to aircrew safety and risk management for aircraft carrier flight operations.

“OLFs are an integral aspect to air stations where carrier aircraft are based,” the statement read. “OLFs are not separate entities. The Navy proposes to use OLF Coupeville in the manner for which it was intended since its inception in 1943.”

The Navy League’s statement went on to assert that current and proposed Growler operations are “not distinctly different” from operations conducted throughout the history of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, and “when total operations are considered, the impact is actually less.”

The Navy League’s statement also went after the COER motion’s description of the Navy’s EIS as “inadequate” by countering that, “due to local and regional sensibilities, the Navy possibly expends more effort and expense here than any other EIS in the nation.”

The Navy League also disputed the relative noisiness of Growlers, stating that Navy jets “as loud as or louder than” the Growlers have been based at Whidbey since 1956.

As for the EIS not taking into account enhanced engines, the Navy League stated there is no NEPA requirement for future engine retrofits.

“The Navy’s model is the accepted standard for land-use planning,” the statement read, in response to the motion’s claim that the Navy did not validate its noise modeling with real world measurements. “This argument was previously rejected by the courts against the activists.”

And the Navy League’s statement discussed concerns about Growlers harming Ebey’s Reserve by characterizing the Navy itself as “an integral part” of the Ebey historical record, and noted the number of community parks, refuges, wilderness areas, wildlife and heritage sites, preserves and reserves across the nation with which the Navy coexists.

“If the court suspends implementation of the Navy’s Record of Decision, the only harm will be to the national defense mission of the Navy and to the genuine safety and welfare of aircraft-carrier personnel and Growler aircrew,” the statement concluded.