Folks,

It's heartwarming reading the public comments in the impact statement
about potentially replacing the grass of that field north of the Fill
with artificial turf (link below). They come from various perspectives,
but they _all_ express the same sentiment: grass is preferred. Reading
the report and it's responses, though, suggests the U's preferred
alternative is still plastic. Many clear reports about birds by
observers were flatly denied. I don't know what it's worth, but I'm
sending this note back.

Ciao,

Alan Grenon
Seattle


Thank you for providing quick access to the latest version of this
report. A quick read of the report reveals, unfortunately, the
following shortcomings.

In section 3.5, climate change, the EIS neglects to include the impact
of replacing the greenhouse gas removing capacity of 3.5 acres of
photosynthesizing plants in the living turf with non-living surfaces.

Page 3-61: Much of the wildlife information is incomplete or out of
date. For example, Bald Eagles also nest in the vicinity of the
project, and are present year-round. Wood Ducks do nest in the
vicinity. There are even nest boxes for this species in nearby
Washington Park arboretum. The closest Great Blue Heron rookery is not
east across Lake Washington, but on the University of WA campus itself,
a short distance west of the UBNA.

The list of birds on page 3-65 is far from a complete list of birds
often using the turf presently on the project site. Examples include
arctic-nesting Greater White-fronted Goose, Mew Gull, American Pipit,
and many other migratory species not ?urban.? Most of these species
feed on the invertebrates and the vegetation of the turf, which will not
be available in artificial turf. The presence of other turf habitats in
the region does not negate the fact that this patch is the one these
birds most often are seen to use in the vicinity. Reducing the
productive area of this attractive field will reduce the probability
these open country species will continue to use it. They do not use the
small plots of residential settings. _Even incremental reduction in
available habitat will reduce the numbers of wildlife that can live in
an area._

The research literature on the negative affects of night lighting on
insect abundance and diversity (as well as on migratory birds) has
apparently not been consulted.

Because of various plantings at UBNA, less area is mowed annually to
control blackberries than is suggested in the report. These plantings
have mostly reduced the area of open habitats at UBNA (as described on
p. 3-70), making this playfield (the proposed project area) more
important for migratory birds.

Referring to p. A-5, usual hydrology findings would hold established
plants would use (in photosynthesis) and transpire more water than
non-living surfaces, so runoff is likely to increase with this change,
in contradiction with this report.

>From p. A-8: ?A small amount of forage area for a limited number of
species, such as Canada Geese, will result from replacement of lawn by
artificial turf.? As mentioned above, many more migratory bird
species use this field. Calling 3.5 acres ?small? is subjective,
and inaccurate in an urban setting.

On page B-7, the report?s responses to earlier comments deny years of
direct observations by experienced citizens who made those comments,
claiming, among else, ?Gadwalls seldom forage on land? and
?waterfowl use of mowed grass athletic fields is very low.? Both of
those statements are false, including specifically on this field.

On page B-8, the report?s response denies the direct reports of
experienced observers of the many bird species recorded repeatedly using
the project?s proposed field. These are not all ?common urban
birds.?

I find no response to the comment about increased heat island effects of
artificial turf compared to grass.

The report should be amended to address these issues.

Thank you,

Alan Grenon
Seattle



On Fri, 4 May 2012 16:55:07 +0000, "Carmen Staab"
<crs6 at u.washington.edu> said:
> Thank you for submitting comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental
> Impact Statement for the Proposed Intramural Activities Field No. 1
> Improvements Project.
>
> The University of Washington has completed the Final Supplemental
> Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed project. This document
> contains project information and responds to comments received on the
> Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
>
> The document may be accessed at the following link:
>
> http://f2.washington.edu/cpo/sites/default/files/file/UW%20IMA%20Field%20FINAL%20SEIS%202012-05-04.pdf
>
>
> Jan A. Arntz
> Environmental and Land Use Compliance Officer
> Capital Projects Office
> University of Washington
> Box 352205
> 206.221.4319
> www.cpo.washington.edu<http://www.cpo.washington.edu>
> jarntz at u.washington.edu<mailto:jarntz at u.washington.edu>
>
--
pan
panmail at fastmail.fm

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders

wherever you are