I do not trust so called environmental impact statements (EIS) is that the group sponsoring one more than likely is not doing it objectively, especially when it comes to the big bad airport. A good example is the so called EIS for logging in California/Oregon concerning the northern spotted owl. The EIS said the bird could live only in old growth forests. However, when was the last time anyone considered a K-Mart sign to be old growth? Yes, they have found the northern spotted owls nesting in those signs and other non-old growth areas. If airports aren't allowed to grow because of some conceived hurt to the environment, then why don't we just all ride bicycles everywhere, including PVD to LAX? David R. http://home.attbi.com/~damiross http://www.secure-skies.org/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alireza Alivandivafa" <DEmocrat2n@xxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [AIRLINE] Providence drops extension plan for secondary runway > In a message dated 5/23/2003 5:10:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > damiross2@xxxxxxxxx writes: > > << I would lay you 2 to 1 odds that the environmental plan for the extension > is > flawed in favor of those who bought near the airport >> > > If it is truely flawed, that is not good. If it hurts that ecosystem at > all though, I don't think they should go through with it