SEALs on Our Shores

After a new decision by park commissioners, Navy SEALs may be using Washington parks as training grounds, but a group of Whidbey locals is pushing back.

Story by Travis Lane | Photos by Tarn Bergman

June 12, 2021

It’s spring at Deception Pass State Park on Whidbey Island, where new wildflowers spot the hillsides and the dense forests are bursting with life. The snow capped peaks of the Olympic Mountains shimmer in the distance and the teal water of Puget Sound swirls between narrow passageways. The sun is shining and the park’s shores and trails are bustling with visitors.

The thick woods and rocky shores of Deception Pass may soon see new visitors. Thanks to a recent decision by park commissioners, the park may become a venue for civilians to unknowingly cross paths with a United States Navy SEAL.

The decision, made by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission on January 28, 2021, allows the Navy to conduct military exercises in 29 Washington State Parks. Previously, the Navy had access to five parks.

In-park exercises proposed by the Navy involve activities like scaling cliffs, climbing on shore from the Puget Sound and surveilling members of their team. During the operations, SEALs will carry replica weapons. They will focus on practicing observation without being seen or leaving any trace, not even a single footprint.

Parks Commissioner Ken Bounds, who voted against the proposal, said in the deciding meeting that the question asked of the commission was not whether parks could accommodate the Navy trainings.

“The question we are being asked as a policy making board, the commission, is: Is the activity proposed by the Navy appropriate?” Bounds said. His answer to this question was no.

Parks Commissioner Michael Latimer, a former member of the Navy who voted for the proposal, shared a different perspective.

“As a veteran, it saddens and disappoints me when I read and I listen to some of these comments that oppose the training of Navy SEALs at our state parks,” Latimer said at the same meeting. “My belief is that many of these comments are based on misconceptions and inaccurate information, stereotypes and negative bias.”

The proposal, passed by a 4–3 vote in the Jan. 28 meeting, has launched a battle over state parks between the U.S. Navy and those who believe the SEALs don’t belong there.

The Whidbey Environmental Action Network (WEAN), a 36-year-old organization based in Langley, Washington, is challenging the decision. The lawsuit alleges the training exercises could be damaging to park land.

During the exercises, Navy SEALs will attempt to blend into the surrounding environment and practice surveillance. At Deception Pass State Park, the SEALs will even climb vertical rock walls while trying to avoid public detection, according to Navy documents. The Navy denies that SEALs will spy on civilians during the exercises.

“The Navy will not be conducting surveillance of any members of the public, either through trainees or unmanned aircraft,” wrote Navy Rear Admiral Stephen Barnett in a letter to Commissioner Don Hoch in December. If personnel are discovered by the public, they will immediately explain what is happening before officers vacate the area.

However, some people aren’t reassured, and warn the Navy has an easy opportunity to watch the public as well. For some, like Steve Erikson, co-founder of WEAN, the decision to use state parks instead of Navy-owned property for these exercises creates suspicion of spying.

“Well, their 46 miles of shoreline don’t have a bunch of civilians they can play with,” Erikson said.

The Navy did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Navy plans have been met with substantial opposition from the public.

“I think it is fair to say from the thousand plus comments we’ve received on this topic over the last month, the clear majority of park users don’t think [it is appropriate for the Navy to conduct trainings in the parks],” said Bounds in the Jan. 28 meeting.

In his letter, Barnett admitted “few people may have submitted supportive or ‘pro-Navy’ comments” on the environmental assessment, but attributed this to the fact the Navy has made “no effort to solicit support or encourage anyone to provide a supportive opinion or message.”

Lack of public support has not stopped the Navy or the commission from moving forward with the proposal. Opponents of the exercises believe the Navy should keep their work confined to military-owned land or private property, but the Navy disagrees.

In their property agreement application, the Navy states: “Without the State Parks lands the entirety of necessary training is unable to be accomplished.”

The Navy looked at three other states’ parks — Alaska, California and Rhode Island — as potential training grounds, but settled on Washington due to “training, safety and logistics,” according to Barnett’s letter.

Members of the public and the commission expressed concerns that state park lands should be limited to intended purposes for the public use and preservation, not military action. According to Marianne Edain, co-founder of WEAN, the Navy already owns enough land in the Puget Sound.

“If I could draw [it] I’d have a cartoon of a couple of preschoolers in the playroom, with one who has a stack of cookies grabbing the one and only cookie out of the hand of the other,” Edain said.

Concerns over training operations go beyond surveillance and land disputes into environmental concerns.

In the final State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, the parks classified four categories the Navy would have to avoid impacting in order to conduct their exercises: plants, animals, recreation and cultural and historic resources. The environmental impacts of the proposed activites were deemed “non-significant.” However, at the time the State Parks Commission approved the training, some of the exact locations to be used within the parks were still unclear.

The ways the State Parks and Recreation Commission will be able to hold the Navy accountable to the SEPA guidelines are unknown. Although the Navy will give park officials an advance warning of upcoming training exercises, many will occur at night and out of view.

WEAN’s initial court briefing claimed the commission “failed to undertake a searching, realistic look at the probably significant adverse impacts threatened by the Navy’s proposal.”

WEAN has set up “Not in Our Parks,” a new coalition with the goal of eventually reversing the commission’s decision through “litigation, public awareness and legislation.”

As summer arrives, Washington state Parks will fill up once again. Some visitors will travel hundreds of miles to reach the park of their choice. Unbeknownst to many, the Navy might just be there too.

Travis Lane is a third-year journalism student at Western with focuses in environmental studies and history.