Mr. Havens isn't out of line here. I have read the entire EIS and reviewed the proposed alternatives. The EIS itself states that none of the alternatives will significantly improve the chemical composition of Budd Inlet. The EIS also states that the largest environmental improvements will be aesthetic. It also states that the dissolved oxygen levels in the inlet will not improve enough to meet state standards, let alone EPA standards. And, unfortunately, the scope of the EIS doesn't include the real impacts of what is happening upstream. Now, I haven't been around in this community long enough to know what lead to here, but an objective review of the information provided in the EIS doesn't really bode that well for the "it's going to improve water quality" crowd.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
