Current

• Failures in the design. Unknown if minor stuff that might be expected on a huge project, or if these are substantial oversights in the design. The anonymous individual quotes a revised completion date of 2020. If true, that has huge cost and political implications for King County.
• Brightwater failed to remove some underground storage tanks that were well documented on the site.
• Cross Valley Water District has found some contamination in some of their wells and linked it to the Brightwater construction.

• One cubic yard (CY) of "in place" soil (compressed in the ground) equates to 1.34 cubic yards of soil loose in a truck. The latter is referred to as a "truck cubic yard" (tcy). Therefore, 1.0 million CY's equates to 1.34 million tcy's.
• An eight-axle truck and trailer carries between 21-26 tcy's, depending on moisture (heavy wet dirt versus dry fluffy topsoil) and density (rock versus peat).
• Assuming a conservative 22 tcy's per truck, 60,909 trips will be required to haul the 1.34 million tcy's from the Brightwater site.
• If a destination site can accommodate 10,000 tcy's per day, it equates to 455 trips per day. That's a truck and trailer every 1.06 minutes - eight hours per day and five days per week.
• If a destination site can accommodate 10,000 tcy's per day, it would take approximately seven months to haul the 1.34 million tcy's from the Brightwater site. If everyone works 10-hour days and six days per week (Monday - Saturday) then it would take approximately five months to complete the process.

• If the revised destination was the Monroe AAA site, add 40 minutes per trip. Total cost would increase by $3.25 million.
• If the revised destination was the Proctor site (in Goldbar), add 90 minutes per trip. Total cost would increase by $7.2 million.

• Land in greater Seattle is expensive and therefore capital expenditures for MXGP may be high.
• The sport of motocross racing generates a high volume of noise that conflicts with existing residential areas and regulations.
• The frequency of injuries in racing necessitate nearby medical facilities.
• It is difficult for individuals to find suitable ORV sites within a reasonable geographic proximity of greater Seattle. The entire area will only get more expensive. You may need to pool your financial resources to establish an ORV site, travel further, or simply abandon the sport.

• We should stop referring to the 19000 Yew Way site as a gravel pit. Moreover, do not allow your mind to visualize the site as a hole/pit or a level piece of ground. The former pit has been replaced by an ever-growing "mountain" of soil. I have seen the site from the air.
• The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) actually has the power to "red tag" the site and stop all operations there. I do not wish that level of enforcement on Rinker Materials, but I do expect the DNR to enforce its regulations for the Reclamation Plan. Take 10 minutes and review the DNR-related letters under Research Summaries.
• Do not confuse casual off-road vehicle (ORV) activities with the MXGP proposal. MXGP proposes to build a race track. Riders and machines will be pushed to their limits, and this means obtaining the maximum performance from one's motorcycle at high RPMs.
• 180th Street SE (between SR9 and Broadway) is "in arrears" with regard to traffic, and hence cannot accept a significant volume of new, peak, hourly traffic. Yes, this was identified to Snohomish County relative to the MXGP proposal. ;)
• All or part of the site at 19000 Yew Way cannot become a park while zoned as "R-5 w/MRO". Moreover, there really isn't much that can be done with the site while it retains the MRO designation. Take five minutes and review the Rural Use Matrix under Research Summaries.
• Our community has yet to find any tangible proof that the proposed dirt berms will successfully function as a noise-containment mechanism. We should not be subjected to an unproven science experiment.
• Our surrounding communities should consider the County codes for Aquifer protection areas (RCW 36.36.010 and RCW 36.36.020) as a method to protect the future of the Maltby aquifer. Take five minutes and review these two County codes under Research Summaries.
• It is not our community's fault or problem that there are no nearby ORV sites. I am sorry that the pro-motocross community has to make sacrifices with their finances or time (to drive to a distant ORV site). I frequently make similar sacrifices for my aviation habit or my family's equestrian habit, and I quietly deal with it. You are not alone. Just please stop making the ORV issue our mutual problem. You will not find any sympathy here when you attempt to make it my problem.
• We have a wide range of visitors to this website. The open-source software AWStats is a wonderful program for processing my web server's log files. I see pro-motocross people linking to this website from their various chat forums (ThumperTalk, SuperMotoJunkie, etc.). I see various legal firms accessing this website from their company domains. I think one or more pro-motocross individuals have their email address on the Mailing List. So be it. It's a free country and this is an open website. Welcome aboard, everyone. ;)
• The drawing/raffle for the autographed football closes on approximately April 30, 2006. Get your email address on the Mailing List if you want a chance to win the football! I am striving to NOT send people a lot of "junk" via the Mailing List.

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding questions related to Surface Mine Reclamation. Rinker Materials current has an active surface mine reclamation permit (#70-010325) for the Maltby Pit. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been and will continue to actively work on surface mine reclamation issues with the permit holder. The dialogue with Rinker has been ongoing and recently resulted in the department issuing an Order to Rectify Deficiencies under RCW 78.44.190. This Order was sent out via certified mail on April 10, 2006. The Order addresses issues related to deviations from the currently approved reclamation plan of record, and also the failure to post a requested increase in performance security for this permit. Rinker has 60 days to comply or 30 days to appeal the Order to Rectify Deficiencies. DNR has commented in a letter to Snohomish County on March 20, 2006 that the significant amount of import fill proposed (900,000 CY's) for the motocross track "is currently not allowed under this permit."

• First, MXGP and Rinker Materials would be prevented from importing the 900,000 cubic yards (CY's) of soil (200,000 CY's for Phase 1, and 700,000 CY's for Phase 2) to create the dirt berms. No dirt berms equals no noise-containment mechanism. No noise-containment mechanism equals no way to contain or channel the significant noise produced by motorcycles at the race track.
• Second, the Reclamation Plan identifies a gradual slope at the site, whereas the MXGP proposal has dirt berms with tops that are level across the entire site.

• Rinker Materials met with the DNR on approximately May 30, 2006 and discussed a new Reclamation Plan for their Maltby site.
• Rinker Materials asked for and received a 60-day extension to submit a revised Reclamation Plan. Rinker Materials now has until August 8, 2006 to submit the Reclamation Plan (and related documents) to the DNR.
• The revised Reclamation Plan must include additional items such as a SEPA Checklist, SM-6, and Geotechnical Evaluation.
• Rinker Materials posted a new security bond (with the DNR) for their Maltby site. The DNR mandated Rinker Materials to increase the security bond from $100,000 to $219,500.

• What is the complete list of "items" that must be included with a proposed/new Reclamation Plan?
• Are any public comments allowed on any of these "items"?
• Is any public-comment period or hearing allowed/conducted as part of the process for a proposed/new Reclamation Plan?

• Can the DNR continue to consider a new Reclamation Plan given the possible litigation? Will the DNR seek input from the SHD regarding the site in Maltby? The possible litigation and the overall issue of the dumping of the contaminants appears to conflict with RCW 78.44.091 (4), and the last paragraph of RCW 78.44.091.
  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=78.44.091
• The DNR's Jan 4/2005 memo to Rinker Materials indicates that inappropriate materials such as concrete and asphalt were dumped at the site in Maltby. Again, this appears to conflict with RCW 78.44.091 (4). Will this history be a consideration when reviewing the proposed Reclamation Plan?
• Will the DNR seek input from the Cross Valley Water District or from home owners, and will a hydrogeologic analysis be required as per RCW 78.44.091 (1j)? I believe both the Cross Valley Water District and individual home owners obtain drinking water from the Maltby aquifer.
  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=78.44.091 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.48

• Are any public comments allowed relative to the SM-6?
• Can Snohomish County approve the SM-6 form given the situation between Rinker Materials, the SHD, and possible pending litigation?

• What role will Snohomish County play in the SEPA Checklist?
• Will Snohomish County allow or request any public comments relative on the SEPA Checklist?

• Would Rinker Materials have not accidentally dumped the contaminated materials if the DNR had enforced its regulations prior to 2003?
• Would the site have been closed or sold (for a purpose other than a motocross track) if the DNR had enforced its regulations prior to 2003 or even 2005?

• Adds teeth to the RCW codes by making some violations a traffic infraction that results in a fine.
• Adds liability for property damage.
• Makes it a violation to operate a non-highway vehicle (ie., a motorcycle or ATV) in such a manner where the noise created by the engine is plainly audible inside or immediate adjacent to a residence.