ALAN BELNIAK: At this point we are going to transition into the Q&A and commentary period. Before we do that, I want to remind everyone that this meeting is being recorded for archival purposes and I'm going to remind everyone how the Q&A and comment process works. If you have joined late, or joining in through the zoom application you should look down below and see a couple of icons. One is Q&A. You can submit a typed written comment and some of you have already have and we will get to them in the moment. We will be that I and Donna were a member of our subject matter experts will address it. You can also raise your hand and see that icon down below as well and that sends a command to me that you would like to come off of the muted state and share your verbal comments or questions. What I will do is when I'm ready for that I will send a command to your airline to take yourself off with me. A member will respond to you and then we will put you back on mute. Some of you who are joining it through the zoom application have also found the closed captioning service down below. That's there if it's required for you as well. I just want to take a quick look to make sure that before we transition over into the Q&A, with that I believe I have covered all the administrative items. I would like to hand it over to Donna Davies to kick us off with the Q&A portion.
DONNA DAVIES: Thank you, Alan. Before we start answering questions I just wanted to introduce some other attendees to this meeting. That I might call on to assist answering some questions. In addition to Tara Morrison, we also have Michael who is the chief resource management. We have Sean McGinty. The public information officer. Jeff Johnson who is an attorney advisor with the department of the interior office of the solicitor. John, NPS contractor with VHB. We also have from DOA E Richard Jackson, the senior Decker -- Deputy Director. With the Department of Parks and recreation we have Nick Kushner.
ALAN BELNIAK: At the moment I don't see any rate stands at just a reminder if you would like to submit a question or comment verbally, that's how you do so. The button down below or star 9. We have a handful of questions in the Q&A box and I will start with the first one and then we can figure out how we address it. The first question comes from Richard. The gates at the south end of KBS were briefly padlocked shut last week. Other future plans to close the gates? If so, when and for how long? And why is the closure necessary as the proposed plan does not include any development of the QPS area?
DONNA DAVIES: Those gates were closed because there was an issue with vehicular traffic through Kenilworth Park South. Perceived issues, that's why it was closed. That area was also administratively closed at the moment. Visitors should not be entering that area. He is correct, there is no risk due to contamination within that area but there are other concerns that we need to think about and consider before opening the area for goods -- for visitor use. That something the park will consider but it was closed for safety reasons.
ALAN BELNIAK: Great, thank you for that. Next question in our Q&A comes from tray from the Anacostia (inaudible). He asks, please explore and how none of the alternatives meet the criteria to reduce toxic city -- toxicity, mobility, etc.
DONNA DAVIES: When you look at different alternatives you basically have three options. One of the options is treatment which is generally groundwater contamination. You also have containment. And removal. We looked at containment which also, that does reduce toxicity and mobility because you are removing the risk posed by the contamination by containing it. We also looked at removal which was alternative five, which was removal of all of the landfill alternatives. When you talk about containment you are reducing toxicity because you are addressing the risk posed by the hazardous substance because you are containing it.
ALAN BELNIAK: OK, thank you for that Donna. The next comment is from Aaron saying thank you for preparing this very thorough and informative video. Kudos to the team. Next question is from Courtney. She asks, if the option with the soil covering over both Kendall Park North and South is chosen will that mean the fields and track and KP and will be unusable? What is the timeline for that type of mediation?
DONNA DAVIES: Our preferred alternative is alternative 3 which does not cover both landfills it just covers Kenilworth Park North. Alternative four is covering both landfills. The process is after we choose a final plan which will come out in the rod? Then at that point, at some point at that point, the Kenilworth Park North will be transferred. It will be transferred to the district. The district is going to be in control of where all the development actually occurs. And I know they are in preliminary stages. As far as timing goes, that's all going to be coordinated with their final development plans are for Kenilworth Park North. So we can't give you any… There's not even an estimated timeframe. I can say, for this portion of the process which includes issuance of the ROD to give you perspective of where that will be when it's issued, it's likely six months to a year until we have issuance of a ROD because it has to go through review and signature of not just the National Park Service but also the interior. After that, we would move into at some point transferring jurisdictional control to the district. I'm going to ask Nick, if you want to add anything to that? Nick is with the district's Department of Parks and recreation. They are in very preliminary planning but if you want to add anything, Nick?
NICK KUSHNER: I think you really captured it. We are excited to see the process move forward. As soon as it's finished, and we are able to complete the transfer, we will be engaging with the community as to the future site plans for the park. We are excited to see it move forward and excited to work with all of you in the community to plan a great park moving forward.
ALAN BELNIAK: Thank you both. The next question comes from Joel and he asks, there are many reasons why wetlands should be restored of this property. There are also many reasons why the local community should have improved recreational amenities. The alternative presented in all or nothing choice. Can 1/6 alternative be developed where provides both the wetlands and support amenities?
DONNA DAVIES: To answer that question it's important to understand the risk posed by hazardous substances. We have to keep that in mind. When we develop the alternatives, thus the purpose. The purpose is what we are comparing, what alternative will reduce risk and then you add those balancing criteria such as cost. But the main objective is to reduce unacceptable risk. If creating wetlands does not reduce unacceptable risk, we would not have the authority to just create wetlands because everyone agrees that wetlands are very important habitat. But in the context of a response which is what we are doing, we have to have some benefit to do that. The benefit has to be tied to a reduction of risk. That's the boundaries that we are working with when we look at different alternatives to. Just to add, the preferred alternative that we chose, there's nothing about the alternative if the agency wanted to create wetlands. There's nothing in the alternative that would prevent that from happening. It's just within the context of CERCLA we have to tie it to the reduction of risk.
ALAN BELNIAK: Next question, alternative five cost is including the alternative to north and south to the original state. What would be the cost to do so only for the north? That's not a cost estimate that we did. If you can obtain the appropriate risk reduction by alternative three, what would be the advantage of removal of all landfill materials for alternative 5. It has to be some sort of benefit to do that. And I don't know what that benefit would be. That is how you choose the alternatives. Alternative 5, if you want to look at common -- complete removal, that's what we did with the choice.
ALAN BELNIAK: Trey, if you wanted to clarify your question, you can feel free to use Q&A or also raise your hand but hopefully that worked for the moment. I do see your hand raise. You will be able to come off of me.
SPEAKER: I do have a few follow once. They are in the Q&A. The preferred alternative of all things, not just one, but the preferred is already treating the north section differently than the south section with regards to a cap. I'm unclear and I would like you to explain why you did not give the same treatment to excavation of the North as opposed to of the South. You have already included excavation of the materials as an alternative so use -- you clearly saw benefit to that. I'm not sure why that question hasn't been installed already. -- Answered already.
DONNA DAVIES: I think when you look at the cost of alternative five, and not just the cost, we also looked at short-term effectiveness. It would take a lot longer. We also looked at the impact of the surrounding community, which it would have a very serious impact to the surrounding community because you would be talking about a lot of truck traffic.
The benefit as far as risk reduction, you are not getting any additional benefit as far as risk reduction. So we could have done that, but what would be the reason to do that?
SPEAKER: I have two points. One is a process question. Again, your preferred alternative allows for a capping only of North. You did a cost estimate that looks much better than alternative 4 because it is only the north section. I am disappointed that you didn't do a similar cost analysis and create a sixth alternative where you do excavation only of the north. Frankly, there's a lot of facilities there, like the track another person asked about already, that may or may not need to be disturbed going forward. A lot of those facilities are relatively new.
I am also disappointed that a cost analysis hasn't been done yet. Maybe this is something that could be done to study what excavation of not quite the entirety of the north section would look like. You know, just an understanding that in this instance you were only responsible for your CERCLA responsibilities, which is to reduce the risk. In regards to what happens next, you already pointed out that excavation might not be able to create a wetland, but it would at least allow other agencies to do that. In this instance I presume you mean the district agencies that take administrative control following remediation. A cap will actually prevent them from doing that efficiently. My nightmare scenario in this is that your preferred alternative is the one that is pursued, you lay a new cap, spending lots of federal tax dollars on the cap, and then the community continues to talk about wetlands and other facilities on that site. And the district is left with the option of undoing that capping to then follow what may be the communities will, so your preferred alternative actually prohibits the ability of the district in the community to follow quite a few other options, really any other option besides capping.
That is a huge opportunity risk in my mind, and one that I haven't seen addressed in any of the documents yet.
DONNA DAVIES: Well, a couple things. The track is actually not going to be disturbed. I am sorry that it was not clear in this figure, but the track is actually not going to be disturbed. But in regards to your comments about creation of wetlands, so the feasibility study, the objective of it is to really look at the current alternatives based on what the anticipated future use is for Kenilworth Park north, which is recreational use, and to compare the alternatives based on the anticipated future use.
So that is not to say that when we get to the design phase, so the design phase happens after the raw design. When the actual engineering drawings are being created. They don't have to be exactly what we are showing here as far as a cap. That happens fairly often. For example, if the district decided, you know what? We do want to create wetlands in Kenilworth Park North, this particular area, that would be addressed at the design phase.
So our alternative in the feasibility study is really for cost estimating purposes and to just provide a basis.
SPEAKER: With this slide up right here, this is a great example. Your alternatives to my mind are flawed because you have this very cart out, look at these beautiful cutouts for facilities in alternative three. Whereas alternative five, it is either all exclamation -- excavation or nothing. I don't really think that apples and apples are being compared here. Alternative three has been designed to reduce costs. It is no wonder that it appears to be so good in your matrix when it responds to criteria.
I really don't think this is a fair assessment until we see something like alternative five. As alternative 4 relates to alternative three, I would like to see a similar relationship to a cutout piece. Even if you want to keep just the footprint from alternative there, that is a simpler way to phrase that. So taking this footprint for capping that you have on the current site, I would like to see a sixth alternative that applies the same footprint, but to excavation. More or less to original state. I don't think that this process is going to be flawed in my mind until we have that as an option to compare. Those exorbitant costs of alternative five and the exorbitant timeline is partially due to digging out the highest part of the park, which is Kenilworth Park South. Not to mention showing only the entire footprint for excavation of Kenilworth Park North, as opposed to these cutouts you have here for alternative three.
It really feels like the study was here to prove how good alternative three is. And other similar options for excavation simply weren't even explored. That is disappointing.
DONNA DAVIES: I think a couple points. Just so you know, it is actually not a cap. It is actually a cover, a soil cover. We are not talking about an engineered cap. What we had to work with is the anticipated future use right now. I have heard nothing about we would want to create a wetland at this location. We would have no basis to choose, OK, we are going to cover this area but create a wetland in this area. I mean, we just don't have any basis to do that.
SPEAKER: Excuse me –
DONNA DAVIES: Up so we could do the cost estimating for removal of Kenilworth Park North. I mean, I think it would be fairly clear that it would be, like I said, much more expensive than alternative three. And also much more disruptive to the surrounding community. And as far as carving out other areas, we have no basis to do that. The basis to do that would be we want to create a wetland in this area. That is a fine goal. You know, it may make sense. In the context of CERCLA, if it is not reducing risk, we have no support to do that. There is no defensibility to do that.
SPEAKER: What was the defensibility of doing it for this alternative on the screen right here?
JEFF JOHNSON: Would you mind if I made a quick clarification? Thank you for the great questions. I just wanted to point out, not speaking at all what you are proposing here, but it is not the case that with alternative three there was one remedy for Kenilworth Park North and a different one for Kenilworth Park South. There is a single remedy. That remedy is to cover areas that present unacceptable risks due to exposure of surface soils in light of the anticipated future use of the site. It is not that only North is capped because those are the areas that present unacceptable risk, that I just wanted to clarify that the Park service did not adopt one remedy for North and one remedy for South.
SPEAKER: That is understood. Thank you, Geoff. My issue is that you bothered to parcel out portions of North for alternative three. But you did not apply the same logic, treatment or geography to alternative five. That is really a partial alternative five, on the same footprint as is currently being showed for alternative three, those two sections of North, that is what is missing from consideration. I don't think this is a fair assessment to we have this as an option.
DONNA DAVIES: OK. Thank you for your comment.
SPEAKER: Thank you for your time.
DONNA DAVIES: We will definitely consider it.
ALAN BELNIAK: Alright. Thank you, Trey. Moving on to a text comment. Donna, this is a quick question for you. Do you have email or prior submitted text comments that we are going to get to later? We have a person who said they have submitted questions to you in advance. That is Marion Dabrowski. So Marion, if you can hear me, I do see your comments here. I think Donna is going to get to those later on. I am going to skip by your name just for a moment. Donna has a preferred time in the meeting to get to those. I just want to acknowledge that I see what you have here. We will certainly come back to it.
With that, we move onto the next one. This one is from Joel Merryman. Joel asks quite simply, is this process subject to review?
DONNA DAVIES: No. We have a list of regulations that the alternative has to comply with. Is NEPA part of the regulations?
JEFF JOHNSON: No. CERCLA response actions are exempt from the process as a matter of law. They are not required to comply.
ALAN BELNIAK: We did have a hand raised. It just went away. If that person wishes to speak again, please reraise it. I am trying to go back and forth between audio and text comments. The next text comment I have your is from Aaron Holmes. Aaron asks, what a simple boathouse facility on the shore of the river in Kenilworth Park North be possible in the future under three or four?
DONNA DAVIES: Yes. I don't think either of those alternatives prohibit construction within – construction like you are talking about. You would just have to manage the risk. So we had identified if the subsurface is disturbed, there is potential risk to workers. You would have to manage the soil that is excavated. So there is nothing that would prohibit that, but you would have to follow protocols and develop plans to manage and mitigate the risk posed. If you're talking about Kenilworth Park South, and I'm sorry, I didn't hear if you are specifically talking about Kenilworth Park South, you would again, because we have not addressed the, we haven't developed the alternative based on that type of use, if that would raise the risk then we would have to have a clean soil barrier before you would do that construction. We would have to look at that. Also, to add for the north, because the administrative jurisdiction will be transferred to the district, that would be a district decision as far as if that would be something they would be developing in that area or not.
ALAN BELNIAK: OK. Thank you for that. Next question. I do see a hand raised. I will get to that in a moment. The next text question is from Jack. Hopefully I am saying your last name currently. Can you put up a map on the shared screen and show the proposed trail bridge from Kenilworth to the Arboretum? I am not sure if a member of the team has that handy.
JON ORDWAY: I do have it. Let me take a second to find it. I will pull it up.
ALAN BELNIAK: OK. I will give you a minute for that.
ALAN BELNIAK: Part of me being efficient wanted to jump to another one. I don't want to lose the train of thought. If you would prefer, John, that you want me to jump to another one, just say the word and we can do that.
JON ORDWAY: To one and circle back.
ALAN BELNIAK: Will do. With that, I do see Marion Dombrowski with her hand raised. I will send a command to you to open your microphone. If you can do me a favor, do us a favor, when you share your comments, if you can let us know if these are the same ones you had shared with Donna. That way we cannot got a couple birds with one stone. You can just let us know. You should have a command sent you to open your microphone. The floor is yours.
SPEAKER: Thank you. This is a follow-up to Aaron's question about boating. There is no alternative that allows any river access at all for alternative five. For fishing, for boating, as the way the shoreline is configured right now, it is not practical. You can ask anybody who has tried to launch there. It is not great for fishing or swimming either. Those are some proposed uses. We don't need a shoreline to play soccer. But you do for boating, fishing, and swimming.
DONNA DAVIES: I can speak to that little bit. The, I would ask a neck also to maybe chime in. But so the final plans for what will be developed at Kenilworth Park not have not been established yet but there is nothing in this alternative that would prohibit, you know, future construction of a boat launch or that claimed of area.
Nick, I don't know if you appeared to indicate if that is something that is in consideration. I think Marion is talking about something that is in addition to access to the river. From Kenilworth Park North.
NICK KUSHNER: I know that is something we have heard from community members and this is come off community group conversations when we talk about future use of the site. But I would be curious to know more as to the restraints that Marian sees and the ability to do that. It is definitely something we can explore more when DPR takes over the mistreated jurisdiction of the site. -- Administrative jurisdiction.
ALAN BELNIAK: Thanks for that. Alright, I will turn back to Jon for the moment. Did you find the image or do you still need some more time?
JON ORDWAY: It is one of those Zoom things where I have to say what I am sharing. I thought I was sharing it. There with me a second.
ALAN BELNIAK: OK. If you like, I can stop this year and then you can re-share. There we go.
JON ORDWAY: This figure shows the proposed segment for the Anacostia River Trail and it shows the proposed Arboretum Bridge optimum location and I believe there are some riverside path areas that are considered and at some point, there has been some discussion of a boat access or river access point in here. I think these are all very preliminary, very preliminary plans as Nick mentioned. There is more planning to be done to decide how the site will be configured in future. While I have this up, I wanted to point out that the area that is brown here where the track is, there is soil fill brought in to this site areas of -- years ago when they constructed the track and so that Phil is not likely to be contaminated and although some additional testing might be done to confirm that, it is unlikely that that area would need to be capped since the areas outside of that. And the areas that are shown that would be capped, actually, this is the alternative four, but alternative three, which is here, shows areas which would be, that would assume a higher intensity use like football fields. There is no understanding yet as to what the areas of the site would be used for athletics but that is what the idea of the cover is is that any area that this cover is located could be a higher intensity use for sports like soccer or other things that come in close contact with soil as opposed to Kenilworth Park South where activities are more like walking, birding, less sort of contact with the soil. That is why there is a difference.
ALAN BELNIAK: Thank you for that. Jack followed up with a comment in the Q and a to say thank you so I think this map serves the question he was dancing -- asking. Thank you. Next, I don't see any hands raised so we will continue with the text Q&A. It's from Larry Martin. Larry asks, "There are several different ecosystem services associated with the different parts of the site. In particular, the repairing an area of the site along the side of the Kostya could have significant value for recreation and flood management and Larry asks, the devaluation of the site remediation options consider ecosystem services in the development of those options?"
DONNA DAVIES: Thank you, Larry. Again, with a circular -- CERCLA response action, we look at our alternatives that reduce unacceptable risk. So although, you know, that may be very good and beneficial to have living shoreline or wetlands adjacent to the Anacostia River, as part of this circular risk -- CERCLA response, we have to tie that to be reduction of unacceptable risk. So that is the criteria that we work with, so.
ALAN BELNIAK: Thank you for that. No hands raised at the moment so continuing with the text Q&A. This comment and follow-on question is from Ruth. Ruth first asks "Can you clarify what if any remediation is being done on Kenilworth South. There are many lovely fruit bearing trees and bushes and I can see kids and adults helping themselves to the fruit. I am concerned are the fruit -- soil is not healthy, the fruit will not be either."
DONNA DAVIES: As part of the remedial investigation, we did a risk assessment to evaluate the risk posed by contaminated soil at Commonwealth Park South -- Kenilworth Park South based on use, which is past recreational use, and we have no evidence that there would be any issues with the fruit. To be honest, I'm not sure and I think Mike COmmissio may be able to answer. I don't know if you should be able to -- eating fruit from a national park but don't know the answer to that. As far as we evaluated risk based on the usage of birding and baking and walking and is no unacceptable risk posed by the surface soil. I think your question did ask about fruit, eating fruit?
ALAN BELNIAK: The comment was "There are many lovely fruit bearing trees and I can see kids and adults helping themselves to the fruit."
DONNA DAVIES: I don't see any unacceptable risk from that so, you know.
ALAN BELNIAK: OK, thank you for that. Next is a comment, not a question, from Justin Linney friends of Kenilworth aquatics Gardens. Back to one of the earlier comments saying the gate is open again and should be closed. More of an FYI to our team. Thank you, Justin. The next question is in text form from Monte Edwards. Monte states "I understand that the park consists of 80 acres and all three propose to place a soil On 60 acres. Over time, athletic areas will likely be arranged on several areas or other activities are likely to occur on unprotected areas. What would be the extra cost to cover the entire site?"
DONNA DAVIES: I don't have the answer to that. JOn, I don't know if you looked at that at all.
JON ORDWAY: Can you repeat that, I'm sorry?
ALAN BELNIAK: Monty states that "For Kenilworth Park North, it is 80 acres and all three proposals cap 60 of those acres and over time, he is suggesting a thing is makeshift and other uses may occur and then there might be some activity on the balance of 20 acres that has not been capped so they are asking what is the extra cost to cover the site while we are at it, so to speak?
JON ORDWAY: Alternative for was a more complete covering which was similar to the proposed land that was put forward in 2013. We could figure out what the difference in cost could be. I can't give you the number right off the top of my head but it was incorporated into alternative 4. That is where we would cover all of the former landfill area of Kenilworth Park South and North. I think certainly, users could change in the future after the CERCLA process is complete. For instance, if someone wanted to put a playground on in the West Park South, the Park service decided to change its use, they would have to address the changed use and the potential for increased risk and address it at that time. But we can get a cost number in our response to comments for that. Certainly.
ALAN BELNIAK: OK, thank you for that. Alright, I do see a hand raised and so I am going to send a command to the user Edwards. Edwards, you should have a command to open up your phone or make and you can do that as soon account you open up and ask your question.
SPEAKER: My full name is Monte Edwards and I just asked the last text question. My question goes only to Kenilworth Park North because that is the park that is being transferred to DC and would be under the control of the Department of recreation. Kenilworth South would remain under the control of the National Park Service according to the congressional grant. So I am only asking what would be the cost to put the soil cap on the entire site of Kenilworth North. I am willing to accept the fact that the National Park Service will continue to be responsible for Kenilworth South and it will be a natural area and thus would not have athletic fields built on it.
DONNA DAVIES: I think, Monty, that is what John was saying that we could estimate and provide in our response to comments.
SPEAKER: Thank you.
DONNA DAVIES: Yes.
ALAN BELNIAK: OK, thank you for that, Mr Edwards. I am looking at the list and keeping an eye on the clock as well. Donna, if it is OK with you I am going to read Marian's comment that she submitted here in the text Q&A. I want to make sure we get to it. For those listening with closed caption services, I promise I will speak slowly here but it is a couple of comments groups quickly – make together. First is site history. Most of the social history of the site and surrounding neighbourhoods will (inaudible) the report. As this information deemed irrelevant to the project? Next is ART Bridge.
DONNA DAVIES: I'm sorry, Alan.
DONNA DAVIES: To answer the first question, so the site history was described in a remedial investigation in the remedial investigation addendum report. Also, I think more what you were looking for we included in the community involvement plan. So the community involvement plan which is currently uploaded at the Kenilworth page, that includes immunity profile, environmental justice analysis, community involvement history and community concerns and needs. So I think that is the document that fully describes what you are asking for in that first question. So that is the answer for number one, yeah.
ALAN BELNIAK: OK. Next is ART Bridge. These elements are made to appear higher priority than remediation. How was it determined that the specific configuration, that is ART and Bridge, be given priority when there are other ways to configure this important link once the park remediation and design are established? The specifically states that the design of trial and Bridge will conform to the requirements of Kenilworth Park and lentil actions. -- Landfill actions.
DONNA DAVIES: I don't think the ART and the bridge were meant to be higher priority. I think we may be need to clarify the language that we used in the EA. The construction of the trail and bridge must be completed in a manner that is safe. In other words, it is part of the planning of those two construction projects, you have to consider protecting workers, preventing the spread of contamination and soil management. So I think when it says that the trial and the bridge conform to the requirements, I think that is what it is alluding to. And you know, I think they represent the current vision for the future land use of the park which includes those two construction
SPEAKER: Two more parts here then we will shift over to a raised hand. The land-use and alternates one through four render most of the site located in a river ecosystem useless as a habitat. Physically how these alternatives protect the environment.
SPEAKER: That ties into something we talked about earlier which is reduction of risk. That is how we look at the alternatives during a response. I don't feel that the alternatives, especially the preferred alternative that renders the site useless is habitat. I think that was one of the advantages of using alternative three which considers the habitat with Park South as valuable. That's why we consider not removing all of the existing vegetation as important because it provides a lot of habitat for birds and other wildlife. I think we definitely value the habitat at Kendall Park South.
As far as the question says please explain how these alternatives protect the environment. That is what we consider when we do the risk assessments as part of the remedial investigations. We do consider risks, not just to human health but also to the environment.
SPEAKER: Thank you Donna. The fourth part of her four-part question is costs is characterized as noncost balancing. It is asked please explain this term. It diminishes the value of the wetlands. Given all the benefits please explain how this determination was made.
SPEAKER: I will ask if Jeff feels comfortable asking this question. If not, at this time this is a question we will answer in the future.
SPEAKER: I would be happy to answer that. I think the term noncost balancing criteria is not something specific to alternative as you probably know Marion, the national contingency plan lays out nine criteria against which remedial alternatives need to be evaluated. Two of them are threshold criteria which must be met. Five of them are balancing criteria, and two of them are modifying criteria. Among the five balancing criteria for of them are what we call noncost balancing criteria and the remaining one is cost. Any references to a noncost balancing criteria is just talking about one of those four criteria described. It is nothing specific to alternative five.
SPEAKER: Thank you Jeff and Donna. I appreciate your comments there. We will shift other to erase hand at the moment to balance out the variety. I'm sure you are sick of hearing my voice. This hand race is for ANC Hassan. I hope I'm saying that right. I'm sending a command to your device to open up your microphone. What to do, the floor is yours. There you go. Thank you.
SPEAKER: Thank you. I appreciate the time and I want to apologize up front I joined a little bit late to the meeting. I am the advisory neighborhood commissioner. One of the commissioners for the area. I just wanted to see if you could restate what the timelines were on potential decisions being made for the proposed alternatives part one, part two for the alternatives that have been proposed, what is the breakout between the responsibilities for who is paying for those different courses of action. The federal government versus DC government. Is that also driving what alternatives or accidents and or plans are being made?
SPEAKER: OK. Thank you for the questions. To answer your first question, we have the public comment. For receiving comments on the preferred alternative through February 10, 2021. Once we review all of the comments, we will make a final decision. We may move forward with alternative three or we may adjust that and work with the different alternatively evaluated. After that, then we will develop... that needs to move through the review process in the Department of the Interior. It is difficult in that time to determine timeframe for that because different reviews. Once route has been finalized, at that point it is likely that the transfer of administrative control will occur with Park North for the district.
At that point we will enter the remedial design phase and that is to face where the actual engineering drawings for what the remedy is going to look like will be drawn up. To answer your second question, to clarify a little bit, the process that we are currently in as far as reviewing alternatives, that is an independent process from the negotiations that are going on. The negotiations have no impact on what our different alternatives were. At this point they are just in discussion. If you want to add anything to that.
SPEAKER: That is exactly right. The United States and the district are in disclose of the cost of the remedy and what we share. Those discussions are completely separate from the revenue selection process. National Park Service is going to select a remedy based on nine criteria for information in the administrative record. The comments received from the public are not going to be negotiating that with the district.
SPEAKER: Thank you both. We will shift back to some textbased Q&A. I just wanted to dissing something to make sure everyone is clear, all of the questions submitted into the Q&A box we are going to capture. We are simply not going to have enough time to get all of those tonight. That doesn't mean the team doesn't want to capture them. Definitely we will share them after the meeting is over. If you feel like we don't have enough time to get to your question, please ask and we encourage you to do so. Please use the Q&A box. We will provide an address at the end if you would like to do that as well if you think of the question after the fact. With that we will shift back to our textbased Q&A. A couple comments from Trey earlier. I think Trey you came on and we might have tackled those.
I will jump to the next new name I have here. That's from Justin Lenny, he asked if the team consider restoration of wetlands adjacent to the river and walked branch?
SPEAKER: Again, we did not because as far as risk reduction, there is an open fit to do that. Within the context of a CERCLA response if it is not tied to the reduction of risk we would have no basis to do that. I want to just be clear that does not mean if down the road a determination is made that either the district or Park service wants to create wetlands adjacent to Watts branch or the river at that can still occur. It is just not within the context of a CERCLA response. It is not tied to the reduction of risks, there would be no basis to support that.
SPEAKER: Thank you for that Donna. Next question comes from and. And ask what considerations were given to wildlife habitat in the area, for instance the American woodcock which breeds in this area. It is a species of great conservation need.
SPEAKER: We definitely consider that as a benefit for not removing all of the habitat for South. In terms of short and long-term effectiveness, that is something to consider so that we didn't deserve the existing habitat.
SPEAKER: Thank you for that. Another question from Marion. With these take place prior to the transfer to DC?
SPEAKER: No. The process will be after a final route is issued. That is likely when the transfer will occur. At that point, that is when the district Parks and Recreation will start doing their planning for future use for Candlewood Park North.
SPEAKER: I'm just looking down to see some new names. I'm trying to get bounce around to give as many folks an opportunity to share their comments as possible. This is from Max. He asked for the estimated cost of the abatement come up with that be born for the National Park Service over the DC government after the transfer of Kennewick Park North?
SPEAKER: Again, I think that is the same answer that Jeff gave and that is to be negotiated in the future. The cost-sharing is active discussions.
SPEAKER: OK. The next one is from Brent Peterson. Rent ask speaking from the record of decision, can you clarify the timeline on the rod being released the transfer of the work being completed. My understanding so far is that the jurisdiction will be transferred after the rod but before the remedial work. Will the remedial work be overseen by EDS after jurisdiction has been transferred or will we continue for the remedial work?
SPEAKER: The ROD will be issued in the transfer will occur. As far as the different responsibilities, that is to be determined. That has not been outlined yet who will be actually doing the work, who will be receiving the work. National Park Service will remain involved with the project. With the specific roles and responsibilities have not been delegated yet. To give a complete answer, Jeff if you have anything to add to that to my understanding?
SPEAKER: I think that's with respect to who is going to perform the work. I think the National Park Service will remain delete to response agencies who will oversee any work that is done. The situation may be similar to what is happening in the Washington station site. That site is now owned by the District of Columbia but the National Park Service is still delete Circle response agency of that site and that's what's going to happen here.
SPEAKER: Thank you. One here is a clarification and we might have time for one more after that. The clarification comes from clarification requests comes from Richard strange. Richard says he said Kenilworth Park South was close for safety reasons. As of three hours ago, the sounds and gates were opened which I think we heard. He said I am not sure I heard an answer if there are future plans to close these gates, if so, for how long?
SPEAKER: Mike, do you or tar or want to answer that question? I will preface by saying my understanding is because now that we... there is no unacceptable risk posed to visitors due to the service-level contamination, that is not the issue why the gates are being closed but as far as when the area will be open, that is a part decision and that is something that will need to be considered by the park. Tar...
SPEAKER: Yes I'm here. As was stated earlier, it was close for safety reasons. Particularly traffic and other issues we are assessing. We will be making a determination in the near future. Really assessing the safety risks for which the cycle is closed and the gates are locked. We understand as was said here a couple of times this evening that they are open so that's an issue we are going to discuss. Just restate, the reason the gates were closed is for vehicular safety and other related reasons not related to the issue we are discussing here this evening.
DONNA DAVIES: Thank you.
ALAN BELNIAK: Thank you. (Inaudible) we are going on our clock yet but I do have time for one more question because I did notice that before the clock rolled over. One more reminder for everyone who has submitted questions in the Q and A who did not get to, we will capture those in shadows with the project team. We thank you for your interest. It's great. The last question I think we will take for the evening is for Patrice. Patrice asks, "A recent development in Virginia used barges instead of trucks. Could option five work with less destruction to the community as an alternative to truck traffic is used? I agree with others that pursuing the option five is a worthwhile effort."
DONNA DAVIES: I think there would be a lot of things to consider. Before making barges anything that would be a viable option. It is not something that we have looked at. The depth of the river would be one thing that would impede that, I believe. But I don't have the information to respond to that but we can look into that and respond to it.
ALAN BELNIAK: Thank you. I believe we are just past 8 o'clock and I think that is the time that we had budgeted so with that, I would like to turn it back over to Donna and into Tara to share next steps and closes out for the evening I had that correct.
DONNA DAVIES: Yes. Thank you, Alan. I want to thank everybody for your participation tonight. It was really great. I also want to clarify if you have questions and I know that we do not get to all of Marian's, you can submit them to me with any of these methods. I will respond to them. If you submit them via email, I will respond in an email. We also plan on providing our responses on the Kenilworth Park lentil webpage which we will update monthly. -- Landfill. This is a bit of a different process compared to what is normally done during CERCLA which is to wait until part of the ROD is finished but due to the engagement, we are taking a bit of a different approach. We are taking time to respond to questions as they come in so that we can continue with the engagement. I do want to thank everybody for participating tonight. And Tara, if you wanted to...
TARA MORRISON: Thank you to Donna and Alan. This was our first virtual public meeting and I think it went well. Thank you both for your work to get us here and thanks to everyone who is dissipating in the webinar. We really appreciate your time and questions and comments as has been stated and you see on the slide in front of you, the comment period is open through February 10, 2021. We anticipate that we will be hearing more and please help us to get the word out because we want to make every effort we can to ensure that anyone who is interested in participating in the process has an opportunity to do so. So again, thanks for your time and enjoy the rest of your evening.
ALAN BELNIAK: Thank you, everyone.