|
|
2003
Questions about NPS's Plans
The Washington Monument is threatened not only by the nearby WWII Memorial construction but also by hasty measures intended to improve security. Our Timeline traces the history of the National Park Service's yearnings for an underground visitor center, the warnings about the unstable soil underlying the Monument and documents the dropping of the water table underneath the Monument.
Questions
- How can the NPS and the public evaluate the EA when reports and data are not yet compiled?
- Why does the EA contain no credible alternatives to the NPS's preferred plan?
- How can the NPS determine there will be no adverse impact? The EA appears to reiterate the January finding, based on an old and different 1993 "concept plan", without seriously evaluating this extensive new project for tunnel and walls.
- Why won't the NPS release to the public the Task Services or Scope of Services for the work contracted in December? We have been denied our FOIA request, which is now under appeal.
- How did the NPS determine that a tunnel into the unstable soils and foundation of the Monument will constitute a "security" measure?
- How did the NPS evaluate the visitor experience of entering the Monument through a 500-foot tunnel? How will handicapped people escape in an emergency?
- How can NPS move forward with this extensive construction project with no estimate of cost to the public?
Arsenic
The EA for the Washington Monument indicates high concentrations of arsenic, about 10 times EPA safety levels, in the 20 feet of fill at the Monument's base.
In 2000, engineers discovered high concentrations of arsenic in the soil and groundwater at the WWII Memorial site. However, since the NPS had issued a FONSI in 1998, no action was taken. Congress passed P.L. 107-11 in May 2001 exempting the WWII memorial from laws and from public oversight.
The NPS issued, we believe, FONSIs for the Vietnam and Korean Veterans Memorials. The soils at both memorials are fill, from the same era as the WWII Memorial and Washington Monument.
- Does the entire East and West Potomac Park have arsenic contamination?
- Both Memorials have had serious problems with water seepage and soil instability.
- Is that seeping water contaminated?
- Are visitors exposed to arsenic contamination?
- Could areas throughout Washington that were created out of fill in the 1880s to 1920s be contaminated?
- Should Congress authorize a thorough investigation for the sake of the public health
Back to the top
|
The Washington Monument
• Summer, 2008, 2008 IG Report Finds "Culture of Expediency"
• April, 2004, Latest Plans
• March 17, 2004, Illegal Contract Sullies National Icon
• Feb. 19, 2004, Judge Collyer decision on Guard Rails
• Nov. 12, 2003, Coalition Calls for Halt to Guard Rails
• Timeline
• 2003, Questions about NPS's Plans
• NCPC Advances Plans for Washington Monument Guard Rails
• "No significant impact" from tunnels, walls -- NCPC
• CFA Tables NPS Plans for Monument
• National Parks Conservation Association Letter to CFA
• Sept. 16, 2002 Letter to Commission of Fine Arts
• Full Text of FONSI Finding (pdf file)
• NCPC Schedules Special Meeting August 15, 2002
• July 27, 2002, NCPC Letter to Coalition re: FONSI
• July 25, 2002, Coalition Responds to NPS Finding of No Significant Impact
• July 25, 2002, Coalition Letter to NCPC re Environmental Assessment
• May 21, 2002, Park Service Extends Comment Deadline
• May 5, 2002, "Set record straight," coalition asks NCPC
• May 22, 2002, NCPC Chairman Responds
• May 1, 2002, Park Service Reaffirms Tunnel Decision
• Feb. 28, 2002, Preservation Board Approves Tunnel Scheme
• Text of Environmental Assessment
Public Responds to the Environmental Assessment
• National Coalition to Save Our Mall
• National Parks Conservation Association
• The Committee of 100
• National Trust for Historic Preservation
|
|
Copyright © 2008 National Coalition to Save Our Mall Inc. All Rights Reserved |
