Letter: Word choice questioned

Posted 4/10/19

In the article about the recent event sponsored by the National Parks Conservation Association and the Sound Defense Alliance (“Sound Defense Alliance Organizes Against Growlers”) that …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Letter: Word choice questioned

Posted

In the article about the recent event sponsored by the National Parks Conservation Association and the Sound Defense Alliance (“Sound Defense Alliance Organizes Against Growlers”) that appeared in the March 27th issue of the Leader, it was stated that Parks representative Julia Tesch reported that the Navy has been fragmenting their legal process into smaller pieces, thereby “minimizing its impact.”

The wording used in the article was misleading. The actual impact of the Navy’s activities has NOT been minimized, nor did he say it was. What she was talking about is this: The law requires that a project or plan that affects the public must be submitted in full, in advance, for public comment and an environmental impact statement must be done.

The Navy has, instead, submitted parts of their expansion project in a piecemeal fashion, with separate environmental impact statements and separate public comment periods for each part.

This minimizes the APPEARANCE of the impact of their overall expansion project, in which they have added 36 more Growler jets and a huge increase in flight hours over the Puget Sound area and Olympic Peninsula as well as Whidbey Island. That impact is enormous and devastating to our environment, our National Park, and our right to live without the harassment of disruptive noise for hours at a time, day after day and night after night, no matter how the Navy spins it.

Laurie Riley
PORT TOWNSEND

Comments

No comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment