Rachel Ramadhyani of Minneapolis Park and Rec Board (MPRB) staff recapped history of B.F. Nelson site, leading up to present day. In early 1970s, MnDOT acquired this industrial area for a freeway that was never built due to community resistance. MPRB purchased property in mid-1980s, with intention of making it part of regional park system. Master Plan was developed in 1990s with a citizens advisory committee. Plan called for passive, natural quality, no structures, restored vegetation, prairie/turf areas and open space (1993). Since then, neighborhood organization has built river overlook, and by late 1990s, community reiterated its desire that Master Plan move forward. However, questions arose about pollution, and testing was done on the site. Results showed “soup” of many different chemicals, but no asbestos. Hennepin County provided additional funding for more testing of soil and water. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) kicked in funds for balance of investigation and Response Action Plan (RAP). RAP is still in the works, but MPCA has general idea of results. Amy Hadiaris, MPCA hydrogeologist with VIC (Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup) program, explained that park board is paying for VIC services right now. Goal is to help park board develop site to park space with manageable risk, not to clean up all contamination. Some contamination will be left below surface, but not where people will come in contact with it. This would cost substantially more. Park board is now exploring funding options for remediation. (Ramadhyani added that site aimed at tax-base generation/commercial development would have better opportunities for funding.) Buildings have been removed from site, but foundations remain. Soil is contaminated with solid and free-flowing asphalt. (Asphalt used to be stored in vats on site.) It is not moving into the river. Contamination was not found in soil at 0-2 feet, some was found at 2-4 feet, more was found at 4-8 feet, then less again after 8 feet. Five groundwater-monitoring wells and 14 other borings were installed for testing. Flow direction is towards river, but groundwater doesn't appear to be impacted much; there may be some petroleum-related contamination in groundwater. Soil is the main problem, however. Key to clean-up extent is how space will ultimately be used. There will be a clean buffer zone 2-4 feet deep, but remainder of soil will probably not be removed. This contamination is “gooey” so it is not moving much and is in hard chunks. Phytoremediation probably would not take care of this problem. Solution most likely will be to excavate shallow material, then lay down a “geotextile” sheet. There is no current health risk here since contamination is 2-4 feet below surface. It appears the aquifer is separated from this. Ramadhyani noted that this is one of the better scenarios we could have, not that any contamination is good. Multi-purpose meadow would have clean fill/topsoil for better growing medium, and turf grass is a shallow-root plant. Hadiaris added that MPCA requires a restrictive covenant for the property deed when any pollution is left, so that future owners/users will know status of property. This won't be inexpensive, but it won't require major revamping of Master Plan, said Ramadhyani. Park board has approached former owner to pay, but there's been no response; legal action may not be cost effective. This will depend on clean-up cost. Metal contamination is not of significant concern here. Hadiaris explained that MPCA has three levels of clean-up: housing, commercial and recreational. Next steps, said Ramadhyani, are to 1) complete RAP, 2) execute restrictive covenants, 3) get a retroactive no-association determination letter under the MPCA's process so park board would not be named as responsible party in future (not the same as a “closure letter;” all contamination would need to be removed to obtain that. Park board is not seeking a closure letter, which may help ensure that site remains park land.) and 4) start pursing clean-up funds. It would be OK at this point to work with park board and MPCA to get appropriate signage in place now, if neighborhood desires this; park board wants its own contractors, not the public, to do this work. Dave Jaeger of Hennepin County said Environmental Response Fund might be able to fund the clean-up gap. Resolution of support from park board and city council will be needed to apply. Ramadhyani said park board could apply in 2006 to Met Council. Whole master plan is $4 million, so it may need to be done in phases. Trees would probably be OK in “picnic nodes” on ends of park or around perimeter. Gardens, if any, would need minimum of 4 feet of clean soil; intention is to leave fairly open area with trees along perimeter. Flowers/gardens involve volunteer work, and park board may not want to get involved in that here. Foundations of old buildings probably cannot be exposed, but interpretive area/historic photos/corner markers are possibilities. Public meeting on this will be Sept. 30, 6 p.m. at park board HQ. Written documents are in the works. Question was asked about where revenues from Boom Island go. Parks Commissioner Dziedzic said these funds go to Enterprise Fund and don't necessarily stay in the area.