A federal judge ruled that the Navy’s errors in studying the environmental effects of noise from the EA-18G Growler jets were so significant that he set a specific deadline for re-doing the Environmental Impact Statement.

In addition, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Jones ruled in the Aug. 16 decision that the Navy must submit status updates every 90 days until the May 1, 2025 deadline, although the Navy can request extensions.

The judge’s order is the latest blow to the Navy in the case that revolves around an increase in the number of Growlers and operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. But as the Navy League of Oak Harbor pointed out, the judge also rejected an argument by the anti-noise group Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve, or COER, which could have an even greater impact.

In 2021, the state Attorney General’s Office and COER sued the Navy over deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared to consider the impacts of additional Growlers.

In 2022, Jones ruled that the Navy had violated the National Environmental Policy Act in creating the Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, which Navy brass relied on to issue a Record of Decision that approved the addition of 33 Growlers at the base and a fourfold increase in carrier landing practice at the small, rural landing strip near Coupeville.

Specifically, Jones found that the EIS failed to quantify the impact of Growler noise on classroom learning; failed to disclose the basis for greenhouse gas emissions calculations; failed to take a hard look at species-specific impacts on birds; and failed to give detailed consideration of the idea of moving Growlers to El Centro, California.

Subsequently, the judge ordered the Navy to redo the EIS but without vacatur. The judge agreed with the Navy that operations can continue at the current level while the study is being done in order to protect the electronic warfare mission deemed vital to national security.

Last fall, the state Attorney General’s Office and COER filed motions asking the judge to set a deadline for the Navy to complete the EIS and to require the Navy to prepare progress reports. Both the state and the group were concerned that the Navy “might drag its feet,” according to a COER press release.

In its filings, the Navy pointed out that continued oversight is unusual in that it is contrary to the traditional rule and that a deadline and updates would be unjustified and burdensome. The judge, however, ruled that targeted requirements are appropriate “in recognition of the significance of the Navy’s errors.”

COER, however, also asked the judge to vacate the Record of Decision that allows the increase in practice at OLF Coupeville.

“COER pointed out new data and information showing that reversion to the prior practice allocations between Ault Field in Oak Harbor and the Outlying Field would reduce the impacts on civilians while the overall number of training operations would stay the same,” COER stated.

The judge denied COER’s request, ruling that the court would not second-guess senior military officials’ professional judgments and that “this ‘not-in-my-backyard’ approach subverts the public interest by proposing shifting noise to another, more populated community.”

The Navy League argues that the judge’s rejection of COER’s motion undercuts the group’s central argument and serves as an admonishment of “nearly all of the activists’ primary goals.”

“In other words, the court rejected the proposition that the activists knew better than the Navy about the importance of the Growler and OLF Coupeville,” the Navy League stated.

The Navy League asserts that the OLF Coupeville landing fields are unique and invaluable for training the high-performance combat jets that are crucial to national defense. The group pointed out that Growlers were among the first platforms called to protect Europe from Russian aggression and have saved many lives through counter-IED programs.

COER’s chairperson, Bob Wilbur, said the group is considering whether to appeal the decision regarding deference to military expertise.

“That rationale places an impossible burden on the plaintiffs that can never be overcome because whatever the military says goes,” he said.