Re: (erielack) Environmental benefits of northwest train service to be clarified

[Hhaines_@_aol.com]

In a message dated 6/30/2004 11:41:19 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
njmidland_@_sbcglobal.net writes:

> These meetings were required to gather
> "public input" into the final EA report.  So if you
> commented (in writing on the provided forms) about
> noise, pollution, traffic, etc. your comments will be
> taken into account.  If you say it will cost too much

Folks,
Tim is correct--for comments to count they need to be directed at the content 
of the EA, and bring up new information.  Costs do not count in EAs, and need 
to be over $100,000,000 in negative IMPACTS (not construction costs) to count 
in the EIS.  
In other words, if a group starts a form letter, and has 100,000 people sent 
it to the lead agency, that comment is still only counted once but they make a 
note of how many showed up. If there are written-in comments on a form 
letter, then they all are read and categorized. If the comments relate to funds or 
fairness, and not an environmental issue, it is listed as "unresponsive" and 
usually ignored.  The EA is done to determine if an EIS is needed, and considers 
only direct impacts of what is proposed--it sound like this is about the 
construction of a line, not what is hauled.

There are ways to fold financial aspects into the environmental veil and make 
them count--it is done all the time.  But it takes a bit more than just an 
average NIMBY to do it. Some of us have been very effective at getting changes 
and modifications incorporated into such documents, and eventually into law, 
but it must be on paper and must be on topic (and probably, for out there, in 
the proper form).   
Based on what I've read on this list, there are several ideas that could be 
incorporated, but the exact language would need some more specifics of what the 
preliminary draft is.  And if these meetings are to gather commonance, one of 
those is floating around somewhere.
That may be where folks like us get to supply content to the comments--for 
example, the project would reduce X tons of carbon monoxide, Z tons of oxides of 
nitrogen, W tons of volatile organic compounds a year because you will use 
the train instead of auto for Y number of miles and trips per year.  Project 
implementation would also reduce T tons of water contamination due to fewer 
gasoline spills (due to less driving and less fuel used).  And the line can 
actually reduce the amount of solid waste generated in the area (because cars would 
last longer, need replacement and hence disposal at longer intervals, and thus 
less solid waste).   And there is a way to bring in the EL heritage (list 
content) to the documents also, but you might want to contact me off-list for 
those items.  
Howard Haines

------------------------------