From: Me:

To: Befimdson; W; Lvnnflichmend

Subject: Re: Meeting in Coupeville
Date: Monday, December 17, 2018 6:49:42 AM

Guess we should talk this morning. J

From: Molly Hughes

Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 8:52 PM
To: Reid Nelson; Katharine R. Kerr; John Fowler; Lynne Richmond
Cc: Amy, Matthew L CAPT NAS Whidbey ls., N00; Allyson Brooks Ph.D; Campbell, Kendall D ClV NAVFAC
NW, PR'W4
Subject: RE: Meeting in Coupeville

' Mr. Nelson, .

To be clear (to quote you) I should have been included in the planning ofthis meeting because l am the
Mayor of Coupeville, not because lam a consulting party. When you are planning apotentially volatile
event in someone else’s community, you should contact the elected official from that community, not
the "lead federal agency.” So far, the Navy has ”assisted” you in contacting the wrong police agency for .
this meeting and reserving you a bad venue. The PAC is smaller than the High School Commons and has
no over-flow potential. The PAC holds 300, the Commons 400. The PAC is an old theater with loud .
wooden, grandstand stairs. It will be noisy and disruptive for people to go up and down these stairs to
get to a microphone to comment. it will slow down the meeting. The Commons are one level with
ample room to set up two microphones and have a line behind them so you can allow as much public
comment at possible. But, maybe this is not what you-are really trying to achieve?

The Reserve staff had placed the Commons on hold for you but your office said they could not accept
the Reserve’s help? Yet you are having the Navy make your arrangements and pay for your security?
Why aren’t you paying for your-own security? . What is your connection to the Department of Defense?
I thought the ACHP was an objective third party, not tied to the military or the community they are
adversely affecting?

Do you have sound equipment arranged for the meeting? If not, call me and I can arrange it, that is if
you Can accept the Town’s help.

Wish I could say "I hope to meet” you too, but I can’t. lam dreading this meeting and the community
strife it is bound to create.

Mofljr
 Molly Hughes, Mayor

From: Reid Nelson [mailto:rne|son@achp.gov]

' Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 1:35 PM .
To: Molly Hughes ; Katharine R. Kerr ; John Fowler
; Lynne Richmond. I l _
.Cc: Arny, Matthew L CAPT NAS Whidbey |s., N00 ; Allyson Brooks Ph.D
; Campbell, Kendall D CIV NAVFAC NW, PRW4

subject RE: Meeting in Coupeville

Mayor Hughes,

Thank you for writing us with these concerns. As a representative of a consulting party in this
consultation, you should have received an invitation email from us about 40 minutes prior to sending
this (see attached), just minutes after the email to Dr. Brooks. Please let us know if you did not receive
it.

We understand and share your concerns about security and are working with the Navy to ensure that
local law enforcement is utilized to provide it. Security arrangements can be challenging for us given the
ACH P’s distance from the venue so it is our standard operating procedure to work with lead federal
agency representatives in the area to arrange for such measures. We certainly welcome your advice on

- how'best to ensure that the meeting is carried out in the safest possible manner, and are open to
further discussions with you about that. I understand also your concerns about the need for such a
meeting, however it is both usual andcustomary for the ACHP to seek public input through a meeting
like thisand we see value in doing so in this case. To be clear, While Navy is assisting us with securing a
venue and supporting the cost of security, this is an ACHP meeting, not a Navy meeting.

Regarding the time allotted to individual speakers, as the entity responsible for carrying out the Section
106 review, it is important that the agency’s views inform our comments to the Secretary of the Navy,
which is why We afforded their representative 10 minutes to provide us whatever information or - _
material they believe germane to the issue. As you know, the State Historic Preservation Officer places
a critical role in Section 106 reviews, as well, which is why we also afforded that. office 10 minutes. You
and the other six formally recognized consulting parties will be afforded three minutes each, so that we I
can benefit from yourfinal advice to us. Again, these time allotments are typical of the arrangements
we make following a termination.
 We estimate that these nine parties will collectively take approximately an hour so to speak, which will
afford the public at a minimum another hour to share its views. We will also be amendable to adding
time to the end of the meeting to hear additional speakers beyond the 7pm registration timeline,
assuming we can secure the facility longer. I am hopeful that this time allotment will allow us to hear
from at least 30 members of the public —— possibly more -—- i_n addition to those that submit comments by
email or-regular'mail.

We recognize also that there is significant frustration among some members of the community with
past meetings hosted by the Navy and assure you this meeting is in no way a continuation or
substitution for those meetings. In carrying out our responsibilities to now provide advice to the -
Secretary ofthe Navy on the undertaking and its effects to historic properties, it is important that it be
informed by the views ofthe public. While the Navy may be acutely aware of those views, we are not.

Finally, we suspect you are correct that many of the comments will be on issues outside of historic
preservation, so we will continue to urge members of the public to focus their comments on matters
relating to the effects ofthis undertaking on historic properties. Thanks again for your comments, | .
hope-to meet you in person next week.

Reid Nelson
Director
Office of FederalAgency Programs,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

From: Molly Hughes

Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 2:37 PM
To: Reid Nelson; Katharine R. Kerr; John Fowler; Lynne Richmond
Co: Amy, Matthew L CAPT NAS Whidbey 15., N00; Allyson Brooks P_h.D; Campbell, Kendall D CW NAVFAC
NW, PRW4 '
”Subject: Meeting in Coupeville

Hello,
. I was notified by Allyson Brooks that you are having a public meeting in Coupeville.
i found out about the location from a local activist group.
i overheard an island County deputy talking about providing security for the meeting, he was speaking
to the Coupeville Marshall wondering why we Weren’t providing that service.
I am receiving emails with questions about the agenda. Why is so much time being given to
government agencies instead ofthe public. -
I am seeing emails, Facebook postings and newspaper articles talking abdut this meeting, all with a
 different twist and purpose.

My question; Why haven’t I been contacted by your office about this meeting?

Hundreds of peoplewill show up for this meeting. Hundreds. The last thing we need is forthe room to
be fullof island County deputies in green jumpsuits. We need Coupeville officers who are known to the
community and who have attended all public meetings about Navy issuesto date. I am working with
I the lC S'herriff and my Police department'to previde the right officers for this event.

' This will be the first, and I’m sure the last, public meeting on the Section 106. Why is priority being
given to the few stakeholders who have been involved in the negotiations and not the public? There
needs to be a quick and accurate summary of the purpose of the Section 106, negotiations to date, the
termination prOCess and who ACHP is and why you are involved at this late stage of the game. The key
word in that last sentence is accurate. I would advise you to stop using the timeline of the negotiations
the Navy has been sending to the newspapers. Neither you, the Navy orthe consulting parties have
been working-on these negotiations since 2014. We have not even been working on them since June of
2018 as you and the Navy keep stating. The Navy might have been holding conversations behind closed
doors in June and July but the first “meeting of stakeholders was not held until AugustB, 2018. The
entire negotiation process lasted four months and none of it‘was conducted in public. If you try to
imply otherwise you will lose credibility. Consider this my officialrequest to be onthe agenda as a
consulting party. i will only speak to correct inaccurate information or if called upon.

Even with an explanation of the purpose of the meeting you must understand, and be willing to be
patient with the fast, that most ofthe comments will not focus on historic resources but on noise,
singlesiting, safety, property values, land use and quality of life. ln'other words this meeting will be.
about the EIS, not the Section 106. If you would have contacted me about holding a publicmeeting
BEFORE sending out a press release, I would have strongly'advised against it. My experience is the
community ca n’t keep all of the Navy’s moving parts separate (contaminated water, EIS, Section 106)
and no Navy action/decision has ever significantly changed as a result of public meetings or public
comment.

We are trying to get through all ofthe Navy’s adverse. effects on our community Without a full—outwar
with our neighbors to the north in Oak Harbor. Every public meeting, every newspaper headline, every
opportunity for input that does not result in any change, makes that outcome less and less likely. You
are only concerned with Section 106, we are dealing with many Navy impacts in this community. it is
naive and arrogant of you not to have" considered the big picture before making your plans. Sadly, this I
is what we have come to expect from ourfederal ”partners.”
 _On pecember 2O“h you will fly back to DC, smug with the fact that you have included a "public process”
in your decision. Our residents will still be here, dealing with the noise. Noise that no amount of
money can ’resolve’, historic or not.

Moféz
Molly Hughes, Mayor
' Town of Coupeville
PO BOX 725
. 4 NE 7th Street '
Coupev-ille WA 98239

360-678—4461, ext. 2
WW