October 21, 1998

Judith Kilgore, Director

Department of Community Development

City of Des Moines

805 South 219th Street

Des Moines, Washington 98198-6340

Subject: Comments on draft supplemental environmental-impact

statement for proposed amendments to Greater Des

Moines Comprehensive Plan (waterfront/in-park

conveyor-belt proposal)

Dear Ms Kilgore:

Here follow the comments of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs on the above-referenced impact statement, submitted in accordance with State law and the invitation to comment set forth in your letter of 4 September 1998 in the subject impact statement. Please keep us advised of proceedings in this matter, & please furnish us with a copy of the final environmental impact statement.

I. INTRODUCTION

1-1. Purpose of document. This document constitutes the comments of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA) on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement issued on 4 September 1998, prepared for the City by Adolfson Associates, Inc. (and associated consultants),& analyzing certain proposed amendments to the City’s comprehensive plan; the amendments are proposed by a private party to accommodate that party’s proposed earth-moving conveyor belt through Des Moines. This document will also constitute the comments of the various

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 2

participants in the RCAA coalition, though member groups & individuals may submit separate comments

1-2. Identity of commenter. The RCAA is a coalition of various citizen groups & individuals who have a long-standing interest in environmental issues. RCAA has submitted extensive comments, professional reports,& testimony on behalf of our member groups & individual supporters in various forums..

1-3. Abbreviations. In our comments we will use certain abbreviations and references.

* City. The City of Des Moines, as a municipal corporation, will be referred to as the "City

* EIS. The subject draft supplemental environmental-impact

statement will be referred to as the "EIS".

* FEIS. The final version of the subject document, to be prepared after comments are reviewed, will be referred to as the "FEIS".".

* POS. The Port of Seattle will be referred to as "the Port" or "POS".

* PSRC. The Puget Sound Regional Council will be referred to as "PSRC."

* SeaTac. The references to "Sea-Tac" will refer to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and not to the City of SeaTac.

* SEPA. "SEPA" refers to the State’s environmental protection act (RCW ch. 43.21C).

* You, yours. "you" and "yours" will refer to the parties responsible for the EIS, including the Department of Community Development

II. GENERAL COMMENTS:

2-1. Topical index. We recommend that the FEIS include a comprehensive topical index. While the analytical table of contents in the

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 3

instant EIS is better than most that we have reviewed, it cannot provide the ease of reference to particular subjects that a topical index provides.

2-2. Impacts on City, other governments. In general, environmental reviews should consider the effects of proposed actions (the matter under review) on other future actions, organization, policies, budgets, & revenues of relevant state, county and municipal governments; special districts and federal and state agencies should also be discussed. This discussion should include information on which government or agency is affected, what will be affected, what the costs of various impacts will be, and who will pay those costs. In addition, an environmental impact statement should include an explanation of what actions need to be implemented to pay the costs, to mitigate the environmental costs and organizational demands upon that agency, as well as what the environmental impacts will be if such policies or projects are not undertaken or implemented. It is our recommendation that a special section of the FEIS be created to discuss these matters, which we do not find addressed in the EIS. (See also Comment 2.3.1, below.)

2.3 Cumulative impacts of ALL associated projects should be considered. The EIS should have considered (& the FEIS MUST consider)

that the proposed project is interrelated with other proposed actions and is not occurring in a vacuum.

2.3.1 Impact on other, near-by communities. The EIS should have evaluated (& the FEIS must evaluate) the impacts on ALL the local communities affected by the proposed mining operation. We believe that such evaluation is mandated by SEPA. Visual impacts, impacts on transportation, traffic congestion, dust, air pollution, noise and all of the

topics discussed related to on site impacts at the Lone Star site on Maury Island must be discussed as these impacts would affect the above routes through which the material would be transported to the proposed project site at Sea-Tac Airport.

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 4

2.3.2. Pending Maury Island strip-mining proposal should be considered part of this project. The pending proposal by Lone Star Northwest, or Northwest Aggregates, Inc., or Oregon City Leasing Co. (whichever is the true applicant) for a vastly increased strip-mining activity on Maury Island, to provide fill to be hauled by Mr Hopkins, is part & parcel of the proposal under rev iew here, & the two proposals should be analyzed in one environmental impact statement. The King County Department of Developmental & Environmental Services ("KC DDES"is considering the Maury Island end of the proposal under one or both of the following file numbers: L9800281, E98E0124. An undated "Final Scope of Work" issued by KC DDES came into our hands on 17 October, and a copy thereof is attached hereto for your information & appropriate further action. We believe that the true proponent of your project and of the KC DDES (or at least the party most benefited by these projects) is the Port of Seattle, & that these two half-projects should not be "piecemealed" in the present fashion. As will be seen from detailed comments below, especially as to the arsenic problem, strip-mining on Maury is intimately connected with bulk (loose, uncovered) transport issues in the City, and in the city of SeaTac.

Because of the interconnection discussed above, we are sending a copy of these comments to KC DDES with a request that they constitute a part of the public comments on the proposal under review by KC DDES.

2.3.3. Third runway at Sea-Tac is part of this project. The explicit purpose of the proponent’s request for Comprehensive Plan amendments is to accommodate the proposed construction of a new ("third") runway by Sea-Tac Airport adjacent to its existing campus, on lands to be acquired in the City of SeaTac. The construction would take place in the headwaters of the Miller-Walker Creeks complex, & would require the infill

of several acres of wetlands (as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). The amount of those wetlands has been variously estimated as 100 (a report by a knowledgeable Port consultant early in the process), 11.42 acres (estimated by the Port in applications to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & the Department of Ecology) late last year), 30-plus acres (a

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 5

number attributed to the Port in newspaper accounts late this Summer), and 20-plus acres (recent estimates by Port press-relations spokespersons). The instant project (in the highly-detailed version put forward by Mr Hopkins) is projected to have slight impacts to Des Moines Creek & its watershed. However, the EIS fails to take into account the overall deleterious impacts to Des Moines Creek & its watershed from the entire project – the massive construction upstream on the expanded Airport site that this particular project would foster. Those impacts should have been evaluated in the EIS. (As will be seen below, in the detailed comments in Part III, the impacts of the project on Des Moines Creek & its watershed are understated in other ways.) At this writing, the public & interested governmental entities are facing a severely "piecemealed" project, in violation of fundamental principles of the law governing environmental reviews: (1) we have the basic environmental review done for the third runway as a concept (under the aegis of PSRC and POS); (2) we have the environmental impact statement done by the POS and FAA for the project-specific construction at Sea-Tac outlined in the Port’s Master Plan Update; (3) we have the revisions done in a supplemental final environmental impact statement to juggle the construction schedule to

accommodate the Port’s fiscal constraints. None of these considers the impacts of the Maury-Island mining / Des Moines conveyor belt scheme. None has accurate figures for impacted wetlands, or adequate analysis of environmental impacts on the streams & aquifers within the present or future Airport campus. Next; (4) we have the Port’s application for a permit under sec. 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, & (5) its companion request for certification from Ecology under sec. 401 of the same Act, both premised on gross understatements of the amount of impacted wetlands. Now we have (6) the Port’s application, through the Lone Star / Northwest Aggregates / Oregon City Leasing Co. group, for permission to strip-mine third-runway fill on Maury Island and (7), through Mr Hopkins, to move that fill through Des Moines by conveyor belt. RCAA is aware that there are various components of the Master Plan Update expansion program that still have not been included in any serious environmental review. When in all of this will there be ONE environmental review, with all the facts on the table? Is the City in a

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 6

position on the basis of the present record to give an adequate review to the Hopkins/Port proposal, with the scope of review artificially constrained by the "piecemealing" process, with so many facts not contained in the application, and with other critical facts still undisclosed?

2-4. EIS understates Port’s fill requirements & thus understates adverse impacts in many ways. The EIS understates by 15 percent the fill requirements for the Port’s third runway project. See pages 1-1, 1-2, Table 1-1 of the EIS. The error is the use of the volume AFTER compaction on site. The correct amount to use in discussions of problems of mining and delivery is the volume as mined, as delivered, and BEFORE compaction at the construction site.

Unfortunately, the Port and the FAA mis-stated the after-compaction amounts in the text portions of their draft and final environmental impact statements for their proposed update of Sea-Tac’s master plan, while reporting those amounts correctly in tables. One example of a mis-statement of the amount required for the third runway is found in the Sea-Tac final environmental impact statement at p. IV.19-1 (vol. 1), as follows:

"Approximately 17.25 million cubic yards of fill would be needed for a proposed 8,500-foot new parallel runway." This is wrong, & this & similar mis-statements have filtered into many other discussions of third-runway fill requirements (such as the instant EIS). The error permeates this EIS, requiring recalculation of length of time required for the operation under both

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Some of the places where recalculation is needed are identified below.

The correct numbers are stated in the draft and final environmental impact statement for the Sea-Tac Master Plan Update in Table IV.23-1, at p. IV.23-13A (vol. 1). Here, one finds the fill requirements for various components of the Master Plan Update project stated in terms of "in-place" volumes and "adjusted" volumes. "In place" means after compaction,

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 7

and "Adjusted" refers to the gross amount required to be delivered. (The FAA and the Port used a 15 percent compaction figure to calculate how much fill must be delivered in order to achieve the required fill volume after compaction. To arrive at the mining/delivery requirement, they take the volume to be occupied by fill (presumably calculated from engineering drawings) and multiply that by 1.15 to arrive at the final figure BEFORE compaction.) In the case of the third runway, the figures are 17.25 m.c.y. AFTER compaction and 19.84 m.c.y. BEFORE compaction.

Using the Port/FAA figures from the table cited above, your Table 1-1 should show the amounts as follows (all amounts rounded to the second figure to the right of the decimal point).

Third runway 19.84 m.c.y.

RSA 1.13 do.

Relocation of So. 154^th 0.14 do.

SASA 2.53 do.

Total 26.40 do.

(We note that the final environmental impact statement for the Sea-Tac expansion projects (Table IV.23-1) states the "common excavation" fill as 3.10 m.c.y., & your discussion might best use that figure.

2-5. Appropriate process. It has been suggested that the process underway here is somewhat irregular: comprehensive-plan amendments are proposed to accommodate a particular, supposedly-temporary project proposed by one private business entity. Surely it is inappropriate to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the exclusive benefit of one business? Surely it is inappropriate to use amendments of the Comprehensive Plan as a permitting process? Surely there can be several possible proposals for allegedly temporary use of parklands & beaches for transportation purposes,

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 8

& surely a general (Plan) review should not focus on just one of possibly several proposal of similar import?

Should not the process be, rather, an examination of the effects of opening up the City’s parklands, waterfront, & so on to transportation purposes generally together, perhaps, with a consideration of creating an

orderly process for licensing, regulating, and approving proposals for such uses?

Should not the consideration of the particular proposal of Mr Hank Hopkins (dba The Wescott Company, dba EMT. dba Environmental Materials Transport) , which has touched off the present process, wait until there is a general decision on how, if at all, to allow the City’s lands to be used for such purposes, & until the implementing ordinances or ordinance amendments are in place? Will the City not wish to have a table of franchise fees in place for various possible uses of its public lands for unconventional transportation purposes? Should the City not have in place some mechanism for deciding which of several (possible) competing applications for use of the park for transportation purposes should be granted? Provisions for bonding, insurance, enforcement, & numerous other matters would seem to be necessary even after amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are enacted )if they are enacted). See, for one example of work that would still be required if the proposed Plan amendments were adopted, the discussion at p. 3-11 of the EIS under the heading "City of Des Moines zoning code".

There may be many different ideas as to what sort of pier & barge set-up would be appropriate to meet the Port’s needs for fill for its Sea-Tac third runway, if shipped by barge; other entrepeneurs may have other proposals for the details of conveyor belts; others may have different ideas for the amount of materials to be hauled, hours of operation, characteristics (such as noise) of equipment, & so on. Proposals that are allowed by the Comprehensive Plan & enabling ordinances should be evaluated each on its

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 9

own merits, in the context of adopted Plan amendments & enabling ordinances – after they are adopted.

It has been suggested that the present EIS deals in considerable detail with matters that are highly-project specific, even though this is, or ought not to be, a project-specific environmental review, but a policy-oriented review. For example, the entire discussion at p. 14-1 of the EIS assumes that the only possible way for a successful applicant to construct a non-conventional transportation system through the City is not only across the beach & through the park, but also in the very narrowly described corridor discussed at p. 14-1. No analysis is presented in the EIS to set forth that this is the only reasonably likely route. Should not a non-specific environmental review be underway at this time, considering (in general) all reasonably likely routes?). This suggests that the choice of alternatives in the EIS is flawed, fatally flawed, by being limited to the proposal of Mr Hopkins, a lesser version of his proposal (less material delivered), & the mandatory no-action alternative.

The EIS assumes that Mr Hopkins has a monopoly on the conveyor-belt business, & that no-one else would appear to make a proposal under the Comprehensive Plan amendments. See EIS, p. 9-4, heading "Proposed Amendments … . " A glance at the Seattle Metro yellow pages (p. 615) will show a full page of firms in the conveyor business (Mr Hopkins not appearing in any of his guises): there is plenty of competition in the conveyor business. The only possible bases for the suggestion that no-one else would seek to use the permissions granted by the Amendments are (1) a collusive agreement among all in the conveyor business not to compete for the Port’s business, or (2) an undisclosed existing agreement with the Port, guaranteeing that Mr Hopkins gets the contract; either of these arrangements would be highly improbable, & unlawful.

The same party who has suggested this group of concerns asks if the proposed Plan amendments would also permit construction of petroleum

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 10

or other pipelines in the City, in the City’s parklands. What is the definition of "conveyor" (see EIS, pp. 2-2, 2-3). Will the courts allow the City to permit a conveyor belt but not a pipeline?

In short, it has been suggested that there should be multiple environmental reviews. The starting point should be an environmental impact statement on the general question of allowing any and all such uses of

the park, the beach, & other public lands, as well as for erection of conveyor belts in the City wherever located. That review would be followed by project-specific environmental reviews if & when (1) the Comprehensive Plan is amended, (2) implementing ordinances are in place, & (3) RFPS are published, or appropriate applications are received.

- - - - -

RCAA does not necessarily endorse these concerns as to the appropriateness of the pending process but believes that they raise issues that should be submitted for your consideration, & for consideration by your legal advisers, before this matter goes to Council, or public hearing.

2.6 Citation to references. We applaud the listing of references consulted by the preparers of the EIS, but we strongly urge that in the FEIS the text should consistently cite the references relied on. Citations do appear occasionally in the draft, & we found them helpful, but many important assertions are not supported by citations.

III. PARTICULAR COMMENTS – WATER-POLLUTION ISSUES

• 3.1 Water-pollution implications – general. We find the statements in the present EIS as to the water-pollution potential from this project to be highly suspect. The discussion of the water-pollution impact of moving this huge quantity of dirt seems much understated. The FEIS should present a

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 11

• credible discussion, citing acceptable scientific/engineering authorities, to support the present low-impact conclusion (which flies in the face of common sense). Much more detailed information should be provided as to water pollution potential created by the disposition of dirt at the transportation route, on adjacent streets, and when the material is in place. Each of these involves construction impacts that should be discussed in detail, rather than shrugged of as negligible. A similar analysis of construction impacts should be provided for all proposed changes to the master plan and associated impact mitigation.

3.2 Likelihood of spills. We are unable to find discussion of the likelihood of spills of materials from the system into the Creek, & the effects thereof. This should be corrected in the FEIS. In the absence of any verifiable information in the EIS, our supposition is that hazardous conditions are being concealed, & that there is a real, & therefore undisclosed, risk of mechanical failure of the system(s). It would follow that such failure will result in the dumping of fill materials into the stream or so close thereto that run-off into the stream is inevitable. It should be posited that the system(s) have no fail-safe features (otherwise, such features would have been mentioned, & cited in the index), so that accidental dumping can go on indefinitely until someone happens to notice the malfunction and is able to close down the system – however that can be achieved.

3.3. Non-temporary operations. Assuming as we must that the Comprehensive Plan cannot legally be altered simply to accommodate one man’s contract with the Port for a specified quantity of fill for one customer (consider, e.g., the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution), the question necessarily arises, "What will be the impacts if/when the conveyor belt continues to run after the end of the promised period?" Or, put another way, after some successful litigant obtains a court order requiring the City to open up a way for some other non-conventional transportation scheme, such a jet-fuel pipeline. The EIS should have addressed the water-quality impacts of ongoing operation of non-conventional materials-delivery systems, or should

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 12

have provided verifiable information to demonstrate the utter impossibility of such operations occurring.

3.4. Extended operations. (i) It is shown above (¶2.4, p.8) that the proponent & the consultant have understated the length of operations, in months, by 15 percent (assuming that the only use for the conveyor-belt system will be for fill for the Port’s proposed third runway). Instead of running for 30 months, as the consultant supposes, the operation must run for a minimum of 34.5 months. (ii) The amount of fill as stated by the Port may be underestimated: One team of experts has said that the proper compaction figure is 21 percent. If true, then the operations would have to run for36.3 months. (iii) The Corps of Engineers may reject the Port’s proposal for a third-runway berm at a 2:1 slope, & may require a more conventional 2.7:1 or 3:1 slope. A wider berm requires more fill – this issue needs to be addressed in the FEIS for this project. (iv) No serious geophysical studies of the third-runway site have been published; no estimates have been provided as to the

amount of unstable/unsuitable soils that must be removed before fill operations begin. Any such removal will increase the amount of fill required. Area residents report – indeed, it is common knowledge -- that the area has various peat bogs without known bottoms; this factor will increase fill requirements by an unknowable amount, resulting in an increase in length of operations. (v) The EIS fails to consider the possibility that the City or the City of SeaTac might not permit 20-hour-per-day operation, as is posited by the EIS (p. 2-14 – but cf. pp. 2-2, 203, where the desired Plan amendment texts are set forth – with no limitation on hours of operation). See ¶4.6 below for further discussion of noise limitations. Unverifiable assertions as to noise impacts are made in sec. 12 of the EIS – not a single source is cited for the assertions there made as to the noise to be expected from the conveyor belt system that the proponent has in mind. It is to be noted that the type of equipment is not specified, for all that we can find in the EIS, so there is NO way for a reader to check the veracity of the assertions about noise.

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 13

The FEIS needs to address whether water-pollution impacts are related to total volume of materials moved, total length of time that the system is in place, total volume of spills, or what.

• 3.5 Holding_basins. In the absence of a topical index, we are unable to find any discussion of holding basins. The FEIS should discuss (in an easily found location) whether or not holding basins or other facilities to control the quantity and quality of storm water runoff will be constructed as a part of this proposal, and, if so, where they will be located. The FEIS should also provide easily-locatable information concerning projected runoff volumes.

3.6 Contaminants control. Verifiable information as to the efficiency of runoff control systems in controlling contaminants should also be provided. Verifiable information should be provided concerning the nature of potential contaminants in the runoff. The impacts of such activities on storm water runoff should be considered.

3.7 Ground-water issues – arsenic. Also the FEIS should investigate and fully disclose the areas underlying the new construction for the third runway that serve as a source for any ground water resources. An investigation should be made of ground waters underlying this area and if so whether such ground waters are used as a water source for any purpose, including human consumption, will be affected by contamination from the material from the Lone Star site. It should be borne in mind that the materials to be transported by this system will be brought in from arsenic-contaminated ground on Maury Island. Arsenic in drinking water is not a cheerful prospect. See Part V, below, for further discussion of arsenic issues.

3.7.1 "Piecemealing". The failure of this EIS to address this problem is another example of the difficulties that have been caused by the "piecemealing" of environmental review here. It is surely obvious that all of these projects are part & parcel of the Port’s third-runway project – the first

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 14

proposed Plan amendment, EIS p 2-2 is explicit about that -- & so this EIS should have considered the arsenic problem on Maury Island, & the consequences of moving contaminated materials through Des Moines.

3.8 Ground-water issues – discharges into local creeks. This E.I.S. should identify how discharges from Sea-Tac to Miller Creek and Des Moines Creek will be handled and whether or not any changes in such discharges are effected by the construction and fill material for the third runway.

3.9 Water pollution & marine/riverine biota. For all creatures in aqueous environments, & especially for salmonids, the FEIS needs to provide better information as to the water pollution impact of moving the huge quantity of dirt that will be required to create the fill needed for a flat runway over a mile long. Information should be provided as to water pollution potential created by the disposition of dirt on streets surrounding the transportation route, as well as once the material is in place. Each of these involves construction impacts. The assumption in the EIS appears to be that there will be no earthy materials reaching the creeks, or the onshore marine environment for salmonids & other creatures – this assumption is not supported by analysis or verifiable information in the EIS.

3.10 Storm-water runoff. Storm-water runoff, in particular, should must be significantly addressed in the FEIS, as a separate topic. We are puzzled at the lack of discussion of the regulatory requirement to secure an NPDES permit for disturbance of the area. The FEIS should review the NPDES requirements and indicate how the subject proposal will meet those requirements. This issue is closely related to several of the other topics discussed in this section. Worst case scenarios during flood conditions should be discussed and analyzed.

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 15

IV. PARTICULAR COMMENTS – OTHER ISSUES

4.1 Earth hazards. Our review of Chapter 14 "Earth" does not reveal discussion of geologic hazards, including known earthquake hazard areas and fault lines, and their relationship to the proposed plan projects. (Again, a good topical index would help in understanding what is, & what is not, covered. The EIS should have indicated how mitigation could avoid all sensitive areas and areas with potential geologic hazards. We do not find a discussion of this topic. The FEIS should identify any sensitive areas with geologic hazards and how will they be avoided.

• 4.2 Airborne dust. Analysis of air pollution from blowing and drifting dust from the transportation and distribution of the fill should be provided. The Maury Island arsenic problem is involved in this issue, as well as in the ground-water issue, discussed above in ¶3.3 above. The discussion of this problem in the EIS (pp. 11-1, 11-2) is inadequate; no reader can tell whether the regulations of Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency will encompass ALL air-borne dust pollution, or whether it will encompass arsenic particles.

4.3 Impacts on plants & animals. Chapters 9 & 10, dealing with marine and upland plants & animals respectively need to be reconsidered in light of the extended length of operations that results from using more accurate figures for amounts of material to be transported (see ¶2.4 above). Both chapters fail to analyze impacts from other possible configurations of pier, barge(s), & conveyor belts: the present proponent may come up with a new approach; his competitors may have their own ideas of what the appropriate system would be.

4.4 Regulatory issues. It is unclear from the EIS what additional regulatory requirements must be met either to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan or to allow actual construction of a conveyor-belt system in the desired area. It might be worthwhile breaking out from the traditional EIS outline to add a chapter on regulatory consequences. For example, will a

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 16

dredge-and-fill permit under Sec. 404 of the federal Clean Water Act be required for any activities? The FEIS should identify the parties on whom the burden of seeking further regulatory approvals rests – the City or a particular project proponent? – and when in the process such approvals must be obtained.

The foregoing does not apply to the commendable discussion of local noise regulations, found in Chapter 12, starting at p. 12-3: that discussion is a good example of researching applicable regulatory regimes & reporting on them for guidance of decision-makers.

4.5 Energy and natural resources. The FEIS must address in a detailed manner the increased requirements for electrical energy, natural gas, water supply, and fuel oils an expanded facility will require. Increased capacity needs and use rates for electrical energy, gas and water use must be addressed.

4.5.1 Source/Availability. The sources of the increased electrical energy, natural gas and water supply must be stated and availability discussed. The impact of installing expanded electrical power, natural gas and water supply facilities will have on the local transportation infrastructure should be considered and discussed.

4.6 Noise. Noise is a complex phenomenon and current methods of measurement are crude. The discussion in the EIS, Chapter 12, while better than most such discussions that we have occasion to see in environmental analyses, does not cover the matter of human perception of noise in sufficient depth to give the reader confidence in the conclusion drawn by the EIS. Likewise, there is a want of verifiable information as to the sound characteristics (1) of equipment proposed to be used by Mr Hopkins, & (2) equipment that other conveyor-belt contractors might use.

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 17

It is our strong supposition that the system, whatever it may be, will be much noisier than the proponent admits, that independent investigation will reveal the noise impacts to be unacceptable, & that the City will not permit operations in the middle of the night, nor seven days per week. Under such circumstances, the length of operations (in days) might be VERY much extended.

4.6.1. C-weighted scale should be used. We are concerned that the work reported in the EIS used only the A-weighted scale. All noise measurements and projections must be given in both the A-filter frequency and the C-filter frequency. The two different frequencies capture noise data for very different sorts of sounds: piercing, penetrating sounds; sounds like human voices; low-frequency sounds --like the bass on the neighbor's stereo (often the most annoying) -- and therefore both must be used & reported.

4.6.2. SEL metric should also be used. Our experience in noise matters has led us to conclude that noise analyses are inadequate to deal with human perceptions of noise if only maximum decibel readings are reported. Those readings are important, & are the most widely used measurement of noise, in large part because they are required to compare noise levels to most studies linking noise to hearing loss, to measure construction and insulation standards, and as well as establishing maximum levels required by hospitals and other noise sensitive structures and areas. They are often used, as is the case in the cities involved here, as legal minimum standards. But we know that humans are also extremely sensitive to single noise events, & that true measurement of annoyance, including sleep disturbance & adverse health impacts, cannot be obtained simply by using maximum levels and averaged readings (such as the SLM metric discussed at p. 12-8 of the EIS).

Therefore, the noise analysis in the FEIS should consider SEL (Single Event Level), both A & C weighted. It is recommended that this analysis include all SEL events above 50 dB in increments of 5 plus the number of events. The method for calculating the noise including the

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 18

assumed event length must be documented along with the rationale and a fully cited bibliography justifying those assumptions. The Des Moines City Council will not be in a good position to gauge the possible adverse impacts of noise from conveyor-belt projects without this information.

4.7 Cost vs. Benefit. One of the primary purposes of the environmental. process under SEPA is to provide public officials with the necessary data to evaluate the costs, including environmental costs, versus the benefit, including environmental benefit for each alternative. We did not find a costs-benefit analysis in the EIS, & strongly suggest that it should appear in the FEIS. We believe that SEPA requires the proponent must provide a detailed cost-benefit analysis of its proposed action. The final impact statement must also address the specific issues list below:

* A detailed return on investment calculation should be made for the proposed project. Such a calculation is crucial to the analysis of the cost and benefits to the public. Who benefits? Who pays? Who suffers?

* Data must be developed regarding both direct and all indirect costs and social costs to compare these to benefits derived from the proposed project. All cost estimates should include who pays for the cost and any interest and other debt service costs that will be incurred.

* Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources must be identified and fully disclosed, both those that include commitments of money as well as other resources.

4.8 Sources of Funding. Sources of funding for all public actions required to effectuate the proposed action must be provided.

Visual Impacts

4.9 Aesthetics.The EIS correctly recognizes that the visual impacts of the project need to be considered (Chapter 4). We are unable to determine

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 19

from the text and map (figure 32) where the noise-mitigation walls referred to at pp. 12-16 & 12-17 would be located, or whether the ‘appearances’ issue has taken into account the affront to the eye that such walls would present, especially in dedicated parklands. This concern leads us to question whether the "after" photos in Figures 14 – 16 (pp.4-6 through 4-8) fairly represent conditions with noise-mitigation measures in place.

4.10 Legal issues.

4.10.1 Control of easement area. At one point, the EIS states that the Midway Sewer District controls the land over which it has a utility easement from the City. We fear that that statement is misleading: "control" from a legal point of view, & particularly for the purposes of this exercise consists of two elements: legal ownership and right to regulate by ordinance. The latter rests entirely with the City. As to the former, the City is, we understand, the owner of the realty, with the District having an easement, no more. For regulatory purposes, then, "control" is with the City – though the District is under the same obligations under SEPA as to this project as is the City.

4.10.2 Scope of easement. The EIS fails to acknowledge the legal issue of whether the scope of the utility easement granted by the City of Des Moines to the Midway Sewer District would be exceeded by locating the conveyor in the easement. Without the ability to locate the conveyor in the easement, the conveyor proposal appears to be impossible because the EIS does not offer an alternative to locating the conveyor in the utility easement granted (or not granted) by the city.

4.10.3 Grading permit. A grading permit would be required for the movement of more than 50 yards of fill, but the EIS fails to note whether this project will likely require movement of more than 50 yards of fill. In order to understand whether or not a grading permit will be required, the EIS should have determined whether or not more than 50 yards of fill will be

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 20

moved to place the support structures for the system to construct a tunnel under Marine View Drive.

4.10.4. "Unclassified-use" permit. The EIS fails to identify the factors that determine whether the proposed conveyor would be considered an "unclassified use", or identify the likelihood of obtaining an unclassified use permit. The process for obtaining such a permit is not identified in the EIS. This may constitute an extensive-12 month process. The conditions that could be required for issuance of classified use permit are not discussed in the EIS and therefore do not provide sufficient information to allow the public to understand the significance of this particular permit.

4.10.5 Clean Water Act. The EIS is unclear about the project impact on water quality standards, and consequently the need for a section 401 water quality permit required under the Clean Water Act. The EIS is silent on the issue of the number of wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed project. The issue of wetland mitigation is not discussed, therefore the proposed action should not be contemplated.

4.10.5 Hydraulic permit. The EIS is silent on the issue of a hydraulic permit issued by the department of Fish and Wildlife.

4.10.6 Crossing permit. The EIS fails to identify the factors that determine whether or not a crossing permit maybe required by the City. The EIS fails to discuss how a crossing permit may be obtained and fails to evaluate the likelihood of obtaining the crossing permit.

4.10.7 Conservancy environment. The EIS acknowledge that the Des Moines Creek Delta is designated as a Conservancy environment under the City of Des Moines Shoreline Management Master Program (CDMSMMP). EIS p. 3-2 ff. Pursuant to rules of the Department of

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 21

Ecology, the objective of Conservancy environments is to:

The EIS states that the barge and the conveyor could be considered either a transportation use, requiring a shoreline substantial development permit, or an unclassified use, requiring a shoreline conditional use permit, but fails to explain what factors determine which label should apply. The difference between these two permits is significant because more stringent discretionary criteria apply to conditional use permits than to substantial development permits. The proper classification of this use and the type of permit required could alone be determinative of whether or not a shoreline permit could be obtained for the project. For the study to be meaningful, the consultant should have to examine how the city analyzed this issue in similar cases. Also, the Department of Ecology must review and approve a conditional use permit. The EIS generically identifies the Department of Ecology action in reviewing the local government decision as a coastal zone management certification and fails to mention the issue of the requirement that the Department of Ecology review the proposed shoreline permit.

4.10.8 Sec. 4(f) permit. The EIS fails to reference a required Section 4 (f) permit. It fails to apply Section 4 (f) criteria requirements in this discussion and fails to reach a conclusion about the likelihood of obtaining permit approval under these criteria. The inability to obtain Section 4 (f) certification would be fatal to the project.

4.11 Extent of Port acquisition program. The EIS (p. 12-6) states that the Port has scheduled residences North of S. 200th street for acquisition by

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 22

the end of 1998. This statement is not supported by the facts. The Port of Seattle's current property acquisition program does not contemplate acquisition of ANY residential property South of S.176th Street. (Reference: Port of Seattle Property Acquisition Program Map dated September 1997. Sensitive receptors will remain in the areas with no mitigation.

4.12 Inadequate discussion of alternatives. The discussion of alternatives (see p 2-21, Alternative 3) is defective in many ways. It does not state that one of the alternatives that can be undertaken is not to construct the 3rd runway. The Section states "It is assumed for the purpose of this SEIS that all required fill material would transported to the airport construction sites by truck under the No Action alternative, as specified in the FSEIS (FAA and Port, 1997) ".

4.13 Petroleum concerns around barge & pier. A careful monitoring plan for petroleum spills due to routine operations of boats & other equipment on the Sound & around the pier & barge (dock), & anywhere else that petroleum may be employed. The requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act & regulations thereunder must be met, & must be dealt with in the FEIS

4.14 Concerns arising from marine operations. In relation to tides, the FEIS needs to include analysis of the effect of tidal heights and currents, the effect on the bottom of moving vessels of various drafts at various water depths. Further it needs to analyze risk of damage to the environment and dock from moving vessels, and risks of grounding, with possibility of oil spills.

The FEIS needs to include analysis of the proposed 10,000-ton capacity barges at the Des Moines end of their run from Maury Island. (Actually these issues should all be dealt with in one environmental review for both halves of the project.) . The barges could be as long as 300 feet with drafts approaching 15 feet. Study needs to be made as to the impact of such vessels on what is essentially a beach operation in a sensitive environment.

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 23

The study needs to consider what horsepower the tugs will have in the operation and the impact of each defined type of tug would have on noise, wake, and damage to the sea bottom from prop wash.

The FEIS should include consideration to how the hulls of all vessels permitted for the operation would affect the bottom or bank material.

The FEIS needs to provide consideration as to impact of the tug/barge operations on fisheries and what conflicts may occur in relationship to geoduck harvesting and other shellfish harvesting.

The FEIS needs to study the impact of the manner in which the tugs will make up to the barge, in order to minimize engine noise, minimize prop wash and wake. Mitigation regarding how the site will be approached, when and where the tugs will make up to the barges, needs to be considered.

The FEIS needs to include a study regarding weather history at the site, wave height and wind force generated, and weather effects on vessels of various size and hull configurations, as well as impact of weather on dust reduction equipment, on gravel loading equipment, conveyors and on the dock itself. This is necessary in order to establish proper limits in the permit as to when operations must cease, in order to prevent damage to the marine environment, to the beach, to the dock, and further to prevent petroleum spills, to reduce the risk of spillage due to the movement of the barge in the seaway, or other problems. Gravel barges have been known to roll sufficiently to spill their loads. N.W. Aggregates has indicated (in the Maury Island process) that there is no risk of spillage under its proposed operations, and yet its divers found underwater mounds of gravel, providing evidence of prior gravel spills during loading.

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 24

V. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON ARSENIC & OTHER HEAVY-

METAL ISSUES

5.1 Heavy-metal incidence at mining site. The EPA mapped the levels of arsenic and lead related to the Asarco smelter at Ruston, the source of heavy-metal contamination on Maury Island, and indicated at the time of the study those levels of arsenic in the vicinity of the site of the materials to be moved on the proposed conveyor-belt system in Des Moines. At the time of the study, the levels were between 90ppm and 300 PPM. Levels of lead were between 80 PPM and 240ppm. Lead and arsenic are stable elements, so the concentrations at the site would remain high for a very long time. The contaminants were airborne when they arrived at the site from Ruston & have largely been undisturbed for the past 20 years. Therefore, it is a logical assumption, and one supported by Lone Star's environmental checklist prepared for the KC DDES process, that the contaminants have remained on site and reside in the surface soil.

5.2 Arsenic & lead issues not addressed in EIS. Our review does not locate any discussion of the heavy-metals issues in the present EIS. The numerous problems discussed below in this regard need to be addressed in the FEIS.

5.3 Health hazards to Maury Island residents should be addressed. As the levels of contaminants on site have the potential for being a health hazard for residents of the communities around the site, the EIS needs to address specifically how the soil will be handled when disturbed, how dust will be monitored should the proposed mining occur, and impact to the site, adjacent communities, and aquifer of any planned utilization/distribution of the contaminated soil after each phase of the mining operation is complete.

5.3.1 Total exposure should be considered. The average native background level for arsenic in undisturbed, unpolluted soil in Washington state is 5 ppm to 6 PPM. These are similar to the levels found in the

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 25

subsurface soils on the site. Calculations of health risks on the mining site should include exposure to background levels, as well as past & current exposure to the Asarco overburden, & future additional exposure arising from strip-mining and transportation activities.

5.3.2 Policy considerations. As arsenic is a class I toxic substance and can cause systemic toxicity at very low levels of concentration, as well as being a known carcinogen, the communities near this proposed project should not be asked to assume any greater risks than that to which they have already been exposed from the Asarco operations.

5.4 Health hazards in Des Moines & SeaTac. As the levels of contaminants on site have the potential for being a health hazard for residents of areas surrounding projects receiving the sand and gravel from the site, controls to eliminate exposure for these individuals/sites must be considered by the EIS.

5.5 Worker protection. The EIS should consider how individuals working on site during the proposed mining operation, barging operation, and conveyor-belt operation will be monitored for exposure to and protected from these contaminants.

5.6 Residual arsenic hazards to plant life. Concentrations of arsenic in the soil become toxic to plants at an average of 28 PPM. Plants may accumulate arsenic via root uptake from soil solution and certain species may accumulate substantial levels. These matters were not considered in Chapters 9 & 10 of the EIS, and must be addressed in the FEIS.

5.7 Need for monitoring. Because of the health risks attributable to the contaminants on site, ongoing monitoring stations, recording data continuously, would be critical at the site & all along the transportation route. Further, the EIS needs to consider what monitoring would be required to

Judith Kilgore 21 October 1998

Re: Conveyor-belt EIS Page 26

ensure contaminated dirt is not being received by communities/projects to which the sand and gravel is sold.

5.8 Post-delivery concerns. Consideration is required of measures to be taken if (as we believe is inevitable), the fill received in the City of Sea-Tac is contaminated – measures related to protection of the materials before they are incorporated, measures related to protection of people downstream in the run-off area from the third-runway berm – an issue not addressed in any environmental review to date.

* * *

If you have any questions please contact me.

Sincerely,

Allan M. Furney

President