|
Title:
Introduction
Text: Land Use Control (LUC) policies, regulations, and procedures have evolved considerably in recent years. The purpose of this Web tool is to help familiarize Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) with Department of Navy (DON) LUC implementation policies and procedures.
A Web-based management tool called LUC Tracker is also introduced that allows RPMs to effectively manage and track LUCs at their sites.
|
|
Visual Description: A map showing the extent of LUCs including roads, gates and other objects.
|
|
Title:
Types of LUCs
Text: LUCs are engineered or physical controls and/or administrative or legal mechanisms designed to protect public health and the environment from residual contamination or munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) at environmental cleanup sites. LUCs are implemented when a site cannot support unrestricted use or unlimited exposure. LUCs can be divided into two categories:
Engineering Controls (ECs)
Institutional Controls (ICs).
|
|
Visual Description: Picture of an Area Closed sign that has text in English and Spanish. The text reads: Area Closed, No earthmoving or dumping – restricted access. Authorized personnel only.
|
|
Title:
Engineering Controls
Text: Engineering Controls (ECs) consist of engineering measures designed to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination or MEC hazards by limiting direct contact with affected areas, reducing contamination levels, or controlling migration of contaminants through environmental media. Some examples of ECs include:
Fences
Signs
Guards
Landfill caps
Slurry walls
Hydraulic control of groundwater.
|
|
Visual Description: Collage of images showing different kinds of controls: a blacktop parking lot, a picket fence, a barbed wire fence and a sign with a person and a red circle with a line through it to depict that people are not allowed.
|
|
Title:
EC Strengths/Limitations
Text: To view the strengths and limitations of various types of engineering controls, click on the categories in the table.
|
|
Visual Description: An interactive list of engineering controls: fences, signs, guards, landfill caps, slurry walls, and hydraulic groundwater controls. When the user presses any in the list, text appears. This text is listed below.
|
|
Title:
Fences
Text: Fences
Fences provide the most direct means to limit public access and restrict inadvertent exposure to a site with contaminants or MEC. By providing access only at certain points, appropriate notice can be given to all users, and uses incompatible with existing site conditions can be avoided. Fences do not require search of local land use records or permitting agencies to determine whether a site is safe to use. Another benefit is that local trespass laws allow violators to be prosecuted.
Fences and other physical barriers require routine inspection and maintenance in order to remain effective. Before including fences as part of an IC program, the following should be considered:
the property owner’s desires
funding for inspection and maintenance
existing use of the site and surrounding properties
enforcement responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Signs
Text: Signs
Signs can provide information on the nature of hazards at a site (chemical or MEC), how to avoid the hazards, and who to contact for additional information. Signs may provide sufficient public notice so that violators can be prosecuted under existing trespass laws.
Signs require routine inspection and maintenance or replacement to remain effective. Positioning of signs is critical to ensure they are seen by the maximum number of people. Also, signs do not prevent people from entering a site, they only inform. Before including signs as part of an IC program, the following should be considered:
the property owner’s desires
funding for inspection and maintenance
existing use of the site and surrounding properties
enforcement responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Guards
Text: Guards
Posting guards at a site provides additional assurance that the site will not be accessed by unauthorized people.
Maintaining guards at a site is a labor intensive method of IC and would most likely be limited to use at very high risk sites or for short timeframes.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Capping
Text: Capping
Capping a contaminated site by covering it with clay, concrete or asphalt has been used as an effective physical barrier to prevent public exposure to certain types of residual contamination and may be used for some MEC sites. Caps can be very effective measures to minimize exposure to soil contaminants or MEC. Caps can take many forms and in some cases the site can have a beneficial use, such as for a parking lot.
The integrity of the cap needs to be maintained through routine inspection and maintenance as well as through controls restricting future excavation at the site. Maintenance of the cap could be the owner’s responsibility, particularly if the cap enhances development potential for a site.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Slurry Walls/Hydraulic GW Control
Text: Slurry Walls/Hydraulic Control
Slurry walls and hydraulic control of groundwater can prevent the migration of contaminated groundwater to areas where the groundwater is pumped for drinking water or other uses or to areas of discharge to surface water, thus preventing exposure to the contaminants by humans or ecological receptors.
These methods require a thorough understanding of groundwater flow conditions prior to installation for effective placement of the slurry wall, extraction wells, or other hydraulic control mechanisms. Monitoring is required to ensure that the contaminants are not migrating to areas where exposure could occur and they may require periodic repairs or replacement of components.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Institutional Controls
Text: Institutional Controls (ICs) are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and/or legal controls that are designed to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use and/or by providing information to help modify or guide human behavior at the site. Some examples of ICs include:
Easements and restrictive covenants
Consent decrees
Notices/advisories
Zoning
Dig Permits
Educational materials
|
|
Visual Description: A close-up of a document for Land Use Controls. Not all of the document is visible, but the visible area contains the following text: Proposed Environmental Land Use Controls (LUCs) for Buildings 213-327. The California Environmental Protection agency ...
|
|
Title:
Institutional Control Strengths and Limitations
Text: Institutional Controls include both legally binding mechanisms such as proprietary controls and government controls and non-legal mechanisms such as educational and informational programs. Click on the categories in the table for more information.
|
|
Visual Description: An interactive list of the following IC Categories: governmental controls, proprietary controls, enforcement and permit tools and informational devices. When the user presses any in the list, new text appears. This text is listed below.
|
|
Title:
Proprietary Controls
Text: Proprietary Controls
Proprietary controls are ICs that are associated with ownership of the land and therefore, are often included in the deed for the land. Proprietary controls generally create legal property interests that restrict or affect the use of property, relying on legal instruments placed in the chain of title for the property. Proprietary controls are classified as either nonpossessory or possessory controls.
Strengths and Limitations of Proprietary Controls:
An advantage is that the administrative structure and support staff are usually already in place to enforce the IC (although additional funding may be required.) A potential limitation is that the enforceability of proprietary controls is governed by state laws, which can vary widely from state to state. Therefore, the property laws of the state where a site is located must be reviewed carefully when using proprietary controls as an IC, particularly the state’s requirements for creating a restriction that is enforceable and binding on both present and future owners and uses.
Proprietary controls require periodic site visits to assess whether land use restrictions are being obeyed. To increase effectiveness, the third party (e.g., a local government or state agency) responsible for performing site visits and enforcing the IC should be agreed upon at the time the restriction is placed on the deed. Government agencies and third parties must have an interest in and capability to monitor compliance with the restriction. When implementing the IC, it should be ensured that all parties (DoD, local government, property owner and property user) share the same understandings as to development and use restrictions placed on the property.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Nonpossessory
Text: In nonpossessory controls, the holder of these interests has a right to use or restrict use of a piece of land but does not actually possess it. Examples include easements, restrictive covenants and revisionary interests.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Easements
Text: Easements
Easements are the most common type of nonpossessory proprietary control. An easement is an interest in a piece of land that entitles its holder to use the land or restrict the use of land owned by another. They include the following types:
Appurtenant Easement: The holder is the owner of nearby land which benefits from the easement, e.g., when a neighbor is allowed to walk across another person’s property to access the beach.
Gross Easement: The holder, usually a company or public entity, does not own the land but has ability to use it, e.g., when a gas company is allowed to lay a gas line on another person’s property.
Affirmative Easement: The most common type of easement, it allows the holder of the easement to use the land in a way that otherwise they could not, e.g., again the gas company has ability to lay a gas line on another’s property.
Negative Easement: Negative easement prohibits the use of the land in a manner that otherwise would be legal, e.g., the owner of a hazardous waste landfill is prohibited from developing the property for another use because of the current use of the site.
Statutory Easement: Easements developed by states, including conservation easements to restrict the property use to one compatible with conservation of the environment or scenery. In the case of sites contaminated with MEC, an easement may be enacted that would restrict the new property owner to land uses compatible with the level of MEC clearance performed during the removal action. Easements have been used under CERCLA to ensure the government has access to a site to conduct additional response actions or perform necessary operation and maintenance at a site undergoing remediation.
Strengths and Limitations:
Effectiveness of an easement to control land use depends on compliance of the property owner with the easement. Generally, only the holder of the easement has the power to enforce compliance with the easement terms, which requires that the holder of the easement remains aware of activities at site and is informed of proposed changes in use. If the holder of the easement does not act on a land use violation, third parties (e.g., local or county governments) do not have authority to enforce the easement. For sites where DoD may be holder of easement but may not have a continuing local presence, periodic site visits are required to assure compliance with the easement. In some cases, if the easement holder acts but courts conclude the action was not timely, the holder may have to forfeit their rights under the easement. Therefore, site visits should be conducted at predetermined intervals (e.g., annually, semi-annually, etc.).
|
|
|
|
Title:
Restrictive Covenants
Text: Restrictive Covenants
Also known as deed restrictions, restrictive covenants are commonly used by federal government to prohibit certain types of development, use, or construction on a piece of land where residual contamination does not allow unrestricted land use. The government generally can take legal action to enforce the restriction if the new property owner does not comply with the restrictions established at the time of sale or lease. A restrictive covenant may be either affirmative (e.g., a landowner is required to do something they otherwise would not be required to do) or negative (e.g., a landowner is prohibited from doing something they would normally be free to do.
Strengths and Limitations:
One advantage of restrictive covenants over easements is the flexibility to apply restrictions not only to an individual plot of land but also to an entire area. However, restrictive covenants tend to be a less desirable IC method than easements. In the past, some restrictive covenants were viewed as racist and removed by judicial order. Also, there is greater variability in state property laws for covenants than for easements , making them more difficult to administer. A covenant generally does not give the holder the right to enter and inspect the property to ensure compliance with the covenant; therefore an easement or some other agreement also needs to be established when a covenant is implemented as an IC.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Reversionary Interests
Text: Reversionary Interests
This proprietary control is also known as “future estates". The deed establishes certain conditions that would cause the property owner to revert back to the original owner if conditions cited in the reversionary interest are violated.
Strengths and Limitations:
Reversionary interests have been used effectively in the past to control future land use on sites that contain contamination. Reversionary interests held by government can last a very long time because equitable defenses such as laches, waivers, and estoppel, that apply to private entities typically do not apply to the federal government. Thus, although a reversionary interest does not always prevent inappropriate use of a property, it can serve to halt such activities by reacquisition of the land by the holder of the reversionary interest.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Possessory Proprietary Controls
Text: Possessory Proprietary Controls
In possessory controls, the holder of the control retains either a full or partial interest in the future use of the land, achieved either by retaining ownership or by retaining a major share in a joint ownership of property through a limited partnership with others. These have been used in both private sector and government, where the holder wishes to retain some say in future use of a property without having the responsibility of total ownership.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Governmental Controls
Text: Government Controls
State or local governments usually implement and enforce government controls. Examples of government controls include zoning restrictions, local ordinances or permits (i.e., building codes or drilling permit requirements), groundwater use restrictions, property condemnation (government taking over a property to ensure that it is not used), siting restrictions, and overlay zoning.
Strengths and Limitations of Government Controls:
One advantage of using local government controls such as zoning, building permits, siting restrictions, and overlay zoning in an IC program is that the administrative structure and support staff are usually already in place to enforce the IC. However, local authorities responsible for administering and enforcing the programs must be willing and knowledgeable participants. A potential limitation of these controls is that local governments may need to balance the desire to derive the greatest economic value of a property with the need to protect the public from residual contamination. It may be difficult for them to limit land use due to a potential risk in the face of development that will create jobs and generate tax revenue, although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Zoning Restrictions
Text: Zoning Restrictions
Local control of land use is primarily through development of zoning ordinances and community master plans. Areas are divided into zones with different regulations for each zone (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial). These regulations apply equally to all properties within a particular zone. Zoning restrictions are often posted in a master plan.
Strengths and Limitations:
Although local zoning ordinances have authority based on state law to restrict land use, no other area of U.S. law experiences the frequency of requests for amendments (e.g., rezoning) or revisions (e.g., variances, exemptions). Thus, obtaining buy-in from the local government is important when using zoning as part of an IC.
Local planning decisions are often driven by economic and political forces. The local planning commission may be focused on deriving the highest economic value from a property with less attention to impact on human health and the environment.
Community master plans or land use objectives most often are advisory and in most states master plans are not enforceable by law. Granting of variances to the master plan has in some cases resulted in inappropriate land use with respect to residual contamination on a site.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Permit Tools
Text: Permit Programs
Federal and private site use can be limited by issuing an enforcement agreement or permit condition under Sections 104 and 106(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Examples of enforcement and permit tools include permits, administrative orders, and consent decrees.
For permits, the permitting agency determines specific conditions which must be met before a certain use or action is allowed on a property. Existing permit programs include building permits, water/sewer connection permits, and state well drilling permitting systems developed to protect the quality and use of groundwater. Permit programs have also been developed to ensure that developers are aware of and comply with special procedures necessary to protect human health and the environment such as when there is residual contamination. In the case of MEC contaminated sites, a permit program might be established to require a developer to contact an approved UXO contractor to clear the area prior to excavation.
When a property is transferred to a new owner, the enforcement agreement or permit condition should be transferred with the property (i.e. run with the land.) Long-term enforcement of ICs should be considered when selecting a site remedy. In order to address this issue, the enforcement tool could require United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or state notification upon property transfer or the possible implementation of multiple ICs.
Strengths and Limitations
Permit programs are one of the easiest local government controls to implement. They are generally administered by a single local government entity, which avoids confusion over responsibility. Permit programs can effectively alert local officials and DoD to proposed land use changes that may be incompatible with site conditions or that require special consideration to ensure safety. However, an effective administration system is required to verify compliance with permit conditions and to provide enforcement to bring violators into compliance. Most localities have a permit system already in place that could be used to administer specific restrictions at sites with contaminants or MEC.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Siting Restrictions
Text: Siting Restrictions
Siting restrictions historically have been used to limit land use in areas subject to natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes, floods) and to protect natural resources from development (e.g., wetlands). In the case of floodplains, as an incentive to restrict development in flood prone areas, an entire community can lose their eligibility for insurance if development occurs within the restricted areas.
Strengths and Limitations
Siting restrictions are useful in addressing large areas with similar hazards under one program. Generic siting restrictions could be developed to address common hazards (e.g., common to all MEC-contaminated sites), although site specific conditions must also be considered on a case-by-case basis.
A limitation of siting restrictions is that development may have occurred in the area prior to the restrictions, making enforcement difficult. Also, local and federal interpretations of restrictions may be different, resulting in development within restricted areas. Similar to zoning, the local planning commission may experience political or economic pressure from local developers to grant variances allowing development in restricted areas.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Overlay Zoning
Text: Overlay Zoning
For overlay zoning, siting restrictions may be combined with local zoning ordinances or master plans to establish an effective IC. When using overlay zoning, the specific siting restriction is used as an overlay on the local government’s master plan, highlighting any discrepancies between the two. Contaminated site locations may be identified on an overlay of the local zoning map or master plan and this overlay would serve to notify those in land use planning of hazards and land use restrictions associated with the site.
Strengths and limitations
Strengths and limitations of overlay zoning are a combination of those for zoning and siting restrictions.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Educational/Informational Controls
Text: Educational/Informational Controls
Educational/informational controls provide information to the local community about site risks and are not legally enforceable. These controls include formal seminars, public notices, deed notices, and state registries of hazardous waste sites.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Formal Education Programs
Text: Formal Education Programs
Formal education seminars may include periodic public education classes given by live instructors or video presentations. They may include seminars for schools children, local residents, property owners, private developers and real estate agents and more formal training for local government or regulatory personnel, emergency response personnel. They can be an effective means to spread the word on the nature and extent of the hazards and the precautions that should be taken.
Strengths and Limitations
Education programs require time and money to prepare as well as scheduling coordination with local groups. The programs should be repeated regularly so that people do not forget or become complacent about the hazards and also to inform newcomers to the area. Not all members of a community will attend the classes or events and, therefore, additional IC may be necessary to provide sufficient risk reduction.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Public Notices
Text: Public Notices
A public notice campaign can include mass mailings of brochures, public service announcements on local radio or television stations, or periodic notices in local newspapers. These educational controls serve to educate the local community as well as newcomers and visitors to the area. One method used in areas of high turn-over is to send brochures outlining site specific hazards to new customers of the local utility company.
Strengths and Limitations
Public notices have the advantage of reaching a wide audience without much effort on the part of the public. Recurring notices have the advantage of reaching newcomers or visitors to the area in addition to reminding long-time residents. A public notice campaign requires both initial and ongoing funding and administration. Using an existing system, such as providing recurring information in local utility bills can minimize funding and administration requirements.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Deed Notices
Text: Deed notices are filed in public land records to provide alerts concerning potential health risks from contamination left at a site.
|
|
|
|
Title:
State Registries of Hazardous Waste Sites
Text: State registries of hazardous waste Sites contain information about contaminated properties as part of a public registry that can be reviewed to determine if a particular property is registered.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Land Use Control Layering (1 of 2)
Text: LUC layering involves the use of multiple ECs or ICs either at the same time (i.e., simultaneously) or one after another (i.e., in series) in order to enhance the effectiveness of the remedy.
LUCs implemented in series may be utilized to address short- and long-term remediation goals at different times during the cleanup process. For example, to restrict land use, the site manager may issue an enforcement tool (Administrative Order); obtain an easement; initiate discussions with local governments about a potential zoning change; and enhance future awareness of the restrictions by recording them in a deed notice and in a state registry of contaminated sites.
|
|
Visual Description: A collage of land use signs. One says “Residential land use prohibited.” One says “Potable water wells prohibited.” One says “Subsurface disturbance/excavation prohibited.”
|
|
Title:
Implementing LUCs (2 of 2)
Text: LUCs can be implemented during all phases of the environmental cleanup process from the early investigations through the final remedy, depending on the need to restrict site use and prevent exposure to contaminants or MEC hazards. LUCs are not limited to use after the ROD has been issued. For example, fences, signs, fishing advisories, and other methods can be employed to restrict use of a site until a response action has been completed and may or may not become part of the final remedy.
|
|
|
|
Title:
DON/U.S. EPA LUC Principles
Text: In 2003, the U.S. EPA and the DON developed a set of guidelines to assist in implementing LUCs at National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The guidelines were established to provide a more efficient process and do not replace any CERCLA statutory or regulatory requirements. The U.S. EPA and DON agree that the most efficient way to specify, implement, monitor, report, and enforce LUCs includes:
A standard Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) for NPL sites;
A clear, concise Record of Decision (ROD), which states the LUC objectives;
Establishment of LUC implementation actions in a Remedial Design (RD) or Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP).
This approach is documented in the Principles and Procedures for Specifying, Monitoring, and Enforcement of Land Use Controls and Other Post-ROD Actions (DoD/Navy, 2003). Also, click here to view the final agreement.
The DON/EPA LUC Principles were developed and approved only within the context of the CERCLA framework. However, DON intends for the Principles to be applied to RCRA Corrective Action programs and state RCRA programs to the maximum extent practicable. DON recognizes that RCRA and CERCLA phases, milestones and documentation requirements are not identical, but they are very similar and, therefore, the functional requirements of the Principles can be reasonably applied to RCRA programs.
|
|
Visual Description: This graphic has the NAVFAC and EPA logos at the top of the graphic. Arrows point from each graphic to a set of boxes that say FFA, ROD and FD/RAWP in them.
|
|
Title:
Roles, Efficiency, and Cost-Effectiveness
Text: DON acknowledges that one of the roles of the U.S. EPA is to regulate and oversee enforcement at NPL sites and coordinate with state regulatory agencies as appropriate in their role as lead regulatory agency. The U.S. EPA acknowledges that the DON is the Federal lead agent for response actions at the site, but U.S. EPA maintains ultimate authority to select the remedy if all parties do not agree with the remedy proposed by DON. It is necessary to work together to reach the most environmentally protective and cost-effective solution.
Both the U.S. EPA and DON desire that LUCs are specified, implemented, monitored, reported on, and enforced efficiently and cost-effectively to ensure long-term protectiveness of the environment. Given equal protectiveness, the most cost-effective remedy will be selected.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Federal Facilities Agreements (FFAs)
Text: FFAs are the CERCLA Section 120 agreements that describe the roles and relationships between the U.S. EPA, DON, and any other state or local authority regarding response actions at NPL sites. FFAs also contain details for planning, budgeting, and dispute resolution.
FFAs will contain installation-specific data; however, each FFA should follow a standard format and include the Model language agreed to by DoD and U.S. EPA.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Screening LUCs in FS or CMS (1 of 2)
Text: During the Feasibility Study (FS) for CERCLA sites or Corrective Measures Study (CMS) for RCRA sites, LUCs should be considered for any site remedy that does not allow for unrestricted land use. LUCs should be evaluated using the same criteria as any other remedial option. Before implementing LUCs as part of a remedial strategy, several criteria should be evaluated to determine their applicability and implementability. These criteria include the LUC objective, mechanism for meeting objectives, time required to implement LUCs, and responsibility to ensure LUCs remain in place. Click on the items in the table for more information about each determination.
|
|
Visual Description: An interactive list of the following Screening IC’s: objective, mechanism, timing and responsibility. When the user presses any in the list, new text appears. This text is listed below.
|
|
Title:
Text: Objective
The objective should clearly state what is expected to be accomplished by implementing the LUCs.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Text: Mechanism
The mechanism or specific types of LUCs that will accomplish the stated objective should be identified.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Text: Timing
The timeframe necessary for LUC implementation should be determined.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Text: Responsibility
A determination of parties that will be responsible for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing LUCs should be made.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Evaluating LUCs in FS or CMS (2 of 2)
Text: Once considerations have been given to the objectives, mechanism, timing, and responsibilities, an evaluation of the LUC as part of the remedy can be conducted. The National Contingency Plan (NCP) remedy selection criteria fall into three groups which include threshold, balancing, and modifying criteria. For more details about each of these evaluation criteria groups, click on the item in the table.
|
|
Visual Description: An interactive list of the following Evaluating IC’s: threshold criteria, balancing criteria, and modifying criteria. When the user presses any in the list, new text appears. This text is listed below.
|
|
Title:
Text: Threshold Criteria:
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
|
|
|
|
Title:
Text: Balancing Criteria:
Long-Term Effectiveness
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
|
|
|
|
Title:
Text: Modifying Criteria:
State acceptance
Community acceptance
|
|
|
|
Title:
Records of Decisions (RODs) (1 of 2)
Text: Once the U.S. EPA and the DON have agreed that LUCs will be part of the selected remedy for a site, the ROD can be prepared. The ROD should document the remedy selection process and the decision with respect to which guidance, regulations, standards, criteria and policy were followed. Risk exposure assumptions along with LUC descriptions and a description of the LUC objectives should also be discussed in the ROD.
Additional items that are required in the ROD are specification of the locations where LUCs will be necessary, identification of who will be responsible for implementing, monitoring, reporting on, and enforcing the LUCs, and determination of how long the LUCs will be implemented.
As an example, click here to access the ROD for LUCs at Sites 8 and 10 Long Beach Naval Complex.
|
|
Visual Description: This is a graphical list of ROD elements for LUC’s that includes: site risk, risk exposure to assumptions, LUC descriptions, LUC performance objectives, responsible parties, affected area and duration.
|
|
Title:
LUC Objectives (2 of 2)
Text: The ROD should document the LUC objectives. The LUC objectives should describe who is responsible for implementing the LUCs, the LUCs purpose, and where they will be implemented. How the LUCs will be implemented including monitoring, reporting, and enforcing will be defined in more detail later in the RD/RAWP. Some examples of LUC objectives include the following:
Ensure no residential use or residential development of the property.
Ensure no withdrawal and/or use of groundwater.
Ensure no excavation of soils without a use permit and special handling procedures.
|
|
Visual Description: Image of a front-end loader excavating dirt at an undisclosed site.
|
|
Title:
Remedial Design and Remedial Action Work Plan
Text: The RD/RAWP describes the implementation, operation, maintenance, and enforcement actions for LUCs. Periodic inspections of LUCs are established in the RD/RAWP.
Implementation actions are outlined including periodic monitoring or visual inspections, notifying regulators of any changes at the site or of LUC failures, and providing a map of the site where LUCs are to be implemented. The use of software such as LUC Tracker can be mentioned in the RD/RAWP for long term oversight of LUCs.
Other than the RD/RAWP, no additional documentation is needed for the design and implementation of LUCs. Therefore, it is not necessary to develop LUC Implementation Plans (LUCIPs) or LUC Assurance Plans (LUCAPs).
|
|
Visual Description: A graphic of NAVFAC’s Remedial Action Work Plan manual.
|
|
Title:
Property Transfer Issues
Text: When property is to be transferred to a non-federal entity, the RPM, real estate manager, and legal counsel need to ensure that the LUCs are practiced and legally enforceable under state law.
DON has the authority to impose restrictions on the transferee's use of the property, and these restrictions are to remain viable and honored by all subsequent owners. In these cases, the ROD should state the responsibilities of the new owner and state-specific laws regarding LUCs. DON and U.S. EPA are responsible for determining enforcement actions should there be a failure of a LUC objective at a transferred property. Any state oversight costs will be paid by the new owner.
Site boundaries and conditions, and terms and limitations of LUCs must be described in the Findings of Suitability to Transfer (FOSTs) and recorded on the deed. All restrictive deeds will require that subsequent owners report viability of site LUCs to the DON annually.
For examples of LUCs established for property transfer, click here to view the Former Fort Ord Ordnance and Explosives Site Security Program Summary and click here to view a restrictive covenant established for a portion of the former Fort Ord Installation, Fritzsche Army Airfield.
|
|
|
|
Title:
Implementation Failure
Text: If a failure to meet LUC objectives on an active installation as outlined in the ROD has been identified, the DON RPM and installation personnel will notify the U.S. EPA Region and work together to take the appropriate actions.
An example LUC implementation failure is shown here. In this hypothetical case, the LUC Objective is to prevent a subsurface disturbance or construction on the property. However, the LUC failed to prevent excavation activities from occurring. LUC implementation failures can be serious, as in this example where the potential for contact with contaminants in the soil may occur.
Should there continue to be a failure to meet the objective, the U.S. EPA may notify the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment), who will ensure that appropriate action is taken. The U.S. EPA and DON will consult on the enforcement action if there is a failure by a subsequent owner or third party at a transferred property.
A LUC violation is less severe than a failure and should be remedied at the RPM or installation level. Examples of LUC violations might be a missed reporting deadline or not conducting a scheduled LUC inspection. LUC violations typically do not present potential endangerment, but should be avoided and remedied as soon as possible.
|
|
Visual Description: A picture (mock-up) of a front-end loader digging at a site where a “Danger no digging” sign is posted.
|
|
Title:
LUC Tracker (1 of 3)
Text: Once LUCs have been implemented, they require periodic monitoring and other activities to ensure that LUC objectives are being met. The DON wants to ensure that all LUC data from Navy installations are managed effectively. To help accomplish this goal, NAVFAC has developed a tool called the “LUC Tracker.”
LUC Tracker is a Web-based management tool that operates as part of the Naval Installation Restoration Information Solution (NIRIS) to allow RPMs and other personnel to effectively manage their LUCs. The LUC Tracker provides Web-based access for entry, storage, and management of all installation LUC data in a database. LUC Tracker will be made available to all RPMs when NIRIS is fully deployed.
|
|
Visual Description: A screen-shot of the LUC Tracker website home page.
|
|
Title:
LUC Tracker (2 of 3)
Text: LUC Tracker allows the user to complete the following tasks:
Create/enter new LUCs
Review existing LUCs
Access inspection templates and maps
Enter inspection results and create inspection reports
Document and track deficiencies noted to corrective actions taken
Notify appropriate parties of non-compliance
Certify compliance and access applicable forms.
LUC Tracker will also track and can be queried for such things as inspection results, types and frequencies of violations, contaminants driving LUCs, and much more. Queries can be conducted Field Engineering Command (FEC)- or Navy-wide depending on the user's access restrictions.
|
|
Visual Description: Another screen-shot of the LUC Tracker website that shows query results. The image is not meant to show actual content and is used for demonstrative purposes only.
|
|
Title:
LUC Tracker (3 of 3)
Text: LUC Tracker also contains applications that will automatically send reminders to pre-selected parties of upcoming inspection, reporting, and certification requirements and provide the necessary forms and reports to fulfill the requirements. If a LUC violation has occurred, the appropriate parties can automatically be notified via e-mail using the LUC Tracker.
|
|
Visual Description: Another screen-shot of the LUC Tracker website that shows an inspection report. The image is not meant to show actual content and is used for demonstrative purposes only.
|
|
Title:
Other LUC Management Tools
Text: In addition to LUC Tracker, there are a variety of other tools maintained by States to manage LUCs and/or notify and educate stakeholders. This information may be useful for Navy RPMs to keep LUCs updated in State databases.
In December 2008, the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) released a document titled An Overview of Land Use Control Management Systems, which reviews and compares the various LUC management systems currently in use.
ITRC reviewed the existing State LUC management systems, which range from simple spreadsheets with little detail to searchable databases with web-based mapping applications. In addition, they reviewed a variety of technologies that potentially could be adapted for various aspects of LUC management. ITRC subdivided the tools into four categories that provide the following services (although some systems addressed more than one category):
Track properties that use LUCs
Provide notification of any activity on a LUC site
Conduct outreach/educate community about LUCs
Facilitate agreement among parties implementing/managing LUCS.
The ITRC document provides a summary, advantages, limitations, users, and case studies for the various LUC management systems.
|
|
Visual Description: Image of “An Overview of Land Use Control Management” manual
|
|
Title:
Information on LUCs
Text: Another valuable source of information on LUCs is the LUCs Web Ring available at http://www.lucs.org.
Established through a cooperative agreement between the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and U.S. EPA, this site provides links to LUC information from a variety of agencies.
The searchable e-library allows access to a wide range of documents, including zoning codes, model covenants or deed restrictions, fact sheets, case studies, and reports, creating a valuable resource for all stakeholders challenged with the implementation and effective coordination of LUCs.
|
|
Visual Description: A screen-shot of the home page of http://www.lucs.org. Clicking on the image will take you to the website.
|
|
Title:
Summary
Text: DON RPMs should be familiar with the latest LUC principles, including the DON and regulatory roles, screening and evaluation process, ROD process, property transfer process, and other factors associated with LUCs. RPMs should also be aware of the availability of the NAVFAC LUC Tracker application for managing LUCs. Links to several policies, directives, and guidance documents are provided for more information about implementing and managing LUCs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
