I hope I am replying correctly -- my apologies if I am not. I had my sister who is a tech writer and works on EIS for a living look at this briefly. Here is her reply. Hope it helps a bit.

without looking at this link, first of all, as many people as possible should submit comment letters on this concern. only a few things can really change a proposed project analyzed in an EIS at this stage (the best time to get involved is at the project scoping stage where they haven't fully defined the alternatives, etc.) -

1. substantial/significant/overwhelming public comment on a particular issue. if this is something that would severely affect birds/wildlife, someone should mobilize and get all of Seattle environmental groups aware and sent alerts to comment on this and tell them what to emphasize - Audubon, Sierra Club, Mountaineers, etc. etc. And they can't be rants. comment letters/emails need to point out the facts clearly as the person did below. Often many comments are just responded to with "Comment noted." period. If there are no laws or regulations against something, no amount of eloquent prose can make a difference, unless the public response is massive, based on good facts and science.

2. a regulatory requirement....such as an significant adverse affects on a threatened or listed species, critical habitat, sensitive cultural resources, etc. (they can't just be indicator species or species of concern, they would need to be listed as threatened or endangered, and that includes habitat, there is a listing for critical habitat). If concerned folks have someone who is knowledgeable about NEPA/SEPA requirements, that would be the best person to advise a course of action and specific triggers that can stop a project (very hard to do) or at least cause the lead agencies to revise their proposal. Audubon and Sierra Club probably have folks to do this. Industry insiders/attorneys who are familiar with NEPA/SEPA are best.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Connie Sidles <constancesidles at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Jan, I just took a look at the draft SEIS on the UW's website (a link that a fellow birder provided to me; this was not easy to find!).
>
> I could not find any mention whatsoever of the effects the "improvements" would have on wildlife, or on the possible pollution of University Slough, which borders the west side of IMA playfield 1. University Slough, I should point out, is a part of Union Bay Natural Area.
>
> Surely a project of this scope, which borders a sensitive wildlife area (namely, UBNA) should include the environmental impact on wildlife and water quality. Do you know if such studies were done? If so, can you please forward them to me? I am a board member of Seattle Audubon Society, and the society has expressed an interest in this project. I would be glad to forward such information to Seattle Audubon, as well as to the birding community at large.
>
> The impact of installing artificial turf in IMA playfield 1 is made far greater by the loss of a significant portion of the playfield south of the helipad, where the new UW Dept. of Athletics track is being constructed. This field, too, provided grazing habitat to native waterfowl, as well as habitat for insectivores, raptors, and gulls.
>
> This is all the more reason we need to know about environmental impacts on IMA playfield #1.
>
> I have also been wondering if you could tell me the reason why artificial turf has been proposed for this field? The field has had natural sod for decades and provides a good compromise for use by both people and wildllife. Why make a change in something that is so successful? - Connie Sidles
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters