DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of Defense (Dod) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Compliance Strategy Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of Defense (Dod) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Compliance Strategy Report OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3000 ACQUISITION TECHNOLOG AND LOGISTI AUG 1 5 2006 The norable Stephen Johnson Admi istrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 ennsylvania Avenue, NW, MC0001 Wash ngton, DC 20460-0001 ursuant to Section 1528(b) of the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005, enclosed is the report concerning the Department of Defense (DoD) underground stora tank (UST) compliance strategy. This report includes data from the Army, Mari e Corps, Navy, Air Force, and the Defense Logistics Agency on USTs owned by or opera ed on DoD installations, as well as for those non-DoD owned or operated USTs locate on DoD installations . As this report details, DoD continues to make progress in its en ironmental compliance programs . similar letter has been provided to the Committee on the Environment and Public of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of sentatives. If you or your staff have any further questions or need additional ation, please contact Mr. Edmund D . Miller at (703) 604-1765 (e-mail : d.miller u,osd.mil ) . Sincerely, ili . one Deputy Under ecre of Defense (Installations and Environment) Encl As st pFfEtt " A1% ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Kling - EPA C«~ :~1t~p~- r1~~ I HE EXEW I i vL SECHETAAIAT DoD Underground Storage Tank 1 DUSD (I&E) Compliance Strategy Report, August 2006 DoD Underground Storage Tank 2 DUSD (I&E) Compliance Strategy Report, August 2006 I. Introduction The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, was signed by the President on August 8, 2005. Title XV, Subtitle B, established the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act (UST Compliance Act) of 2005. Section 1528 (b) of the UST Compliance Act requires, within one year, “each Federal agency that owns or operates one or more underground storage tanks, or that manages land on which one or more underground storage tanks are located, shall submit to the Administrator, the Committee on the Energy and Commerce of the United States House of Representative, and the Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate a compliance strategy report that: (A) Lists the location and owner of each underground storage tank described in this paragraph; (B) Lists all tanks that are not in compliance with this subtitle that are owned or operated by the Federal agency; (C) Specifies the date of the last inspection by a state or Federal inspector of each underground storage tank owned or operated by the agency; (D) Lists each violation of this subtitle respecting any underground storage tank owned or operated by the agency; (E) Describes the operator training that has been provided to the operator and other persons having primary daily onsite management responsibility for the operation and maintenance of underground storage tanks owned or operated by the agency; and (F) Describes the actions that have been and will be taken to ensure compliance for each underground storage tank identified under subparagraph (B). This UST Compliance Strategy Report provides information about location, compliance status, regulatory inspections, violations, operator training, and follow-up actions of USTs owned or operated by Department of Defense (DoD) Component installations and for those not owned or operated by the DoD Component installations but located on DoD property. The DoD inventory information is summarized in this report. The DoD Component data are summarized in Appendix A. Appendices B through E contain the actual DoD Component data. II. Guidance for UST Compliance Strategy Report While developing this report, DoD consulted U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Guidance for Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act 2005 Federal Facility Compliance Reporting,” which established criteria for defining and reporting compliance data for federal agencies. There are several key guidelines that DoD used to develop this report. A. Definition of USTs: This report includes “federally” regulated USTs as defined in regulation 40 CFR 280.12 except for USTs excluded in 40 CFR DoD Underground Storage Tank 3 DUSD (I&E) Compliance Strategy Report, August 2006 280.10(b) and 40 CFR 280.10(c). B. DoD Component USTs: This report includes those USTs owned or operated, or on lands managed by the Military Services (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force). USTs owned or operated by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) are included in the inventory for the Military Service that owns the real property. The Army inventory in Appendix B includes 166 state owned and operated Army National Guard USTs that are not located on DoD property. These are not included in the DoD summary tables (Section IV and Appendix A) because they are not DoD owned or operated. Army Corps of Engineers USTs are not included in the Army inventory, as a separate report will be submitted. Army and Air Force Exchange Service USTs are reported in accordance with their respective Military Service location; USTs on Army installations are reported in Appendix B and USTs on Air Force installations are reported in Appendix E. Navy Exchange Services USTs are also reported in accordance with their respective Military Service location. Navy Exchange Services USTs on Marine Corps installations are reported in Appendix C and USTs on Navy installations are reported in Appendix D. C. Non-Compliance Status: The date of March 31, 2006 was selected to provide a snapshot in time to determine the compliance status for each DoD UST. In addition, Army data included the compliance status of 46 Army owned/ operated USTs that were inspected after March 31, 2006. The non- compliance status of each UST was determined based on the last inspection of the UST and the status of any non-compliance. III. Data Collection Overview DoD Component data to support the requirements of the UST Compliance Act were collected from the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and DLA. Appendices B through E provides DoD’s Component data on: • UST Installation Name and Location • UST Identification Number • Owner and Operator • Date of UST Inspection • UST Status as of March 31, 2006 • Prevalent Violations • Actions Taken for USTs Out of Compliance • Action Status for USTs Out of Compliance The DoD operator training is summarized in Section IV. C. DoD Underground Storage Tank 4 DUSD (I&E) Compliance Strategy Report, August 2006 IV. DoD Summary This Section contains a summary of the federally regulated USTs located on DoD Component property, DoD owned/operated UST compliance status, and UST-related training. Detailed data collection results for the DoD Components are presented in the Appendices. A. USTs Owned or Operated By DoD Figure 1 and Table 1 show the distribution of USTs owned or operated by each DoD Component. There are 4,355 USTs on DoD property, and 4,314 are owned or operated by DoD. USTs operated by DLA are accounted for in the Army data. Out of the 4,355 USTs on DoD property, 41 are owned or operated by other non-DoD entities. Thirty-eight are non-federally owned and three are owned by another federal agency. One Navy non-DoD federal UST is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy at Naval Region Hawaii, one Air Force non-DoD federal UST is owned by the Federal Aviation Administration at Otis Air National Guard Base, Massachusetts, and one Marine Corps non-DoD federal UST is owned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. Figure 1. DoD-Owned or Operated USTs Total: 4,314 DoD Underground Storage Tank 5 DUSD (I&E) Compliance Strategy Report, August 2006 Table 1 DoD USTs Total on Component Non-DoD Component DoD-Owned/Operated Property Owned/Operated Army 1,286 1,255 31 Marine Corps 143 136 7 Navy 812 811 1 Air Force 2,114 2,112 2 DoD Total 4,355 4,314 41 B. UST Compliance Status The current compliance status of DoD Component USTs is based on regulatory inspections on or before March 31, 2006. DoD has established three levels of compliance status for its USTs. 1. Compliance - Tanks inspected prior to March 31, 2006, and determined to be in compliance with state and federal regulations and having no written non-compliance record, or no unresolved non-compliance issues from the last regulatory inspection. 2. Non-compliance - Tanks inspected prior to March 31, 2006 and determined to be in non-compliance, based on the following unresolved written regulatory notices: a non-compliance checklist, a non-compliance letter, a Notice of Violation (NOV), or a warning letter. 3. Not inspected - Tanks that have not been inspected are not considered either in or out of compliance. Table 2 displays the total number of DoD USTs inspected on or before March 31, 2006. Seventy percent of the DoD USTs were inspected at least once by either a federal, state, or local regulatory agency. Table 2 DoD UST Regulatory Inspection Status Total DoD Total Percent Not Total Inspected Percent Inspected Owned/Operated Not Inspected Inspected 4,314 3,021 70% 1,293 30% Table 3 shows the total number and percentage of the inspected USTs and their compliance status as of March 31, 2006. Summary details on the compliance status for each DoD Component UST are in Appendix A. DoD Underground Storage Tank 6 DUSD (I&E) Compliance Strategy Report, August 2006 Table 3 Compliance Status for Inspected DoD USTs Total Total Percent In Total Out of Percent Out of Inspected In Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance 3,021 2,956 98% 65 2% Of the USTs inspected by a regulatory agency, 65 USTs (2%) are out of compliance as of March 31, 2006. For these USTs, 19 are awaiting regulatory approval for completion, 35 are in the process of completing actions, and 11 have projects waiting final approval.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • For Commissioner Coyle
    DCN: 12358 For Commissioner Coyle Sir - this is your copy of the Fort Belvoir visit report, which is an addendum to the Fort Monmouth recommendation report. After our visit was completed, the Night Vision Lab sent copies of letters of support, and other papers that they say address questions you asked during the visit. Everything they sent has been included in this package for your perusal as well. They also requested that this report be sent to GEN Hill, but I have not done so yet and I believe that all of the pertinent issues will be covered when we brief all of the commissioners on our analysis. I can forward him a copy, however, if you think it is wise to do so. Please let me know if you have any comments or anything else you want me to get on this issue. Wes Hood SECOND ADDENDUM FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY BASE VISIT REPORT COMMISSIONER VISIT TO THE NIGHT VISION & ELECTRONIC SENSORS DIRECTORATE (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE NIGHT VISION LAB) 1 LOCATED AT FORT BELVOIR, VA 7 JULY 2005 LEAD COMMISSIONER: Commissioner Philip Coyle CORIRIISSION STAFF: Wesley E. Hood (Army Senior Analyst) LIST OF ATTENDEES: Luanne Obert NVESD-OD Fenner Milton NVESD-OD Aaron LaPointe NVESD-STD COL McCOY NVESD-OD Kelly Sherbondy NVESD-STD Don Reago NVESD-OD CPT Nicole Clark NVESD-OD Bill Jarvis NVESD-OD John Nettleton NVESD-STD Jeanna Tendall Hq AMC Stationing Office Ken Yosuda NVESD-STD Pat Decatur U.S. Army Garrison Fort Belvoir Andy Hetrick NVESD-GCSD Michael Jemings NVESD-SPPD Wayne Antesberger NVESD-GCSD Jim Campbell NVESD-STD Paul E.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Facilities
    COMMUNITY FACILITIES INTRODUCTION As the population grows, so does the demand for public services and the facilities where they are provided. In planning for public facilities, it is important to consider not just the size of the County's future population but also its age and geographic distribution. Seniors and school-age children, for example, have very different service and facility needs. Additionally, the increased concentration of people in the lower County must be considered in facility planning, since facilities should be convenient to the citizens who use them. Community facilities planning is especially challenging in York County because of its geography: York is a linear county, with the upper County separated from the lower County by a vast expanse of Federally-owned land. Consequently, without a central location that is readily convenient to a majority of County residents, it is sometimes necessary to have separate facilities for upper and lower County residents in order to meet the citizens' demands for conveniently located facilities. Because it adjoins all other localities on the Peninsula, York County is uniquely suited to engage in a variety of regional efforts that allow communities to recognize facility service area boundaries, which are often more realistic than jurisdictional boundaries, in providing community facilities and services. Regional and cooperative partnerships provide opportunities for increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness not only because they can prevent needless duplication of effort but also because economies of scale can be realized. This element of the Comprehensive Plan is divided into five sub-elements: Detention and Law Enforcement, Fire and Life Safety, Government Offices, Libraries, and Schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 15, 1996 / Notices 53725
    Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 15, 1996 / Notices 53725 Department of the Army 30537), which provided notice that the comments are received that would Draft EIS was available for comment. result in a contrary determination. Notice of Availability of the Final Comments from the DEIS have been ADDRESSES: Send comments to General Environmental Impact Statement for considered and responses are included Counsel, Defense Special Weapons the Disposal of Chemical Agents and in this Final EIS. After a 30-day waiting Agency, 6801 Telegraph Road, Munitions Stored at Pine Bluff Arsenal, period the Army will publish a Record Alexandria, VA 22310±3398 Arkansas of Decision. Copies of the Final EIS may FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. be obtained by writing to the following address: Program Manager for Chemical Sandy Barker at (703) 325±7681. ACTION: Notice of availability. Demilitarization, ATTN: SFAE±CD±ME, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SUMMARY: This announces the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland Defense Special Weapons Agency availability of the Final Environmental 21010±5401. notices for systems of records subject to Impact Statement (FEIS) on the ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), construction and operation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as amended, have been published in the proposed chemical agent will also publish a Notice of Availability Federal Register and are available from demilitarization facility at Pine Bluff for the Final EIS in the Federal Register. the address above. Arsenal, Arkansas. The proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The proposed amendments are not facility will be used to demilitarize all Above address, or Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • 515 Part 334—Danger Zone and Restricted Area Regulations
    Corps of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, DoD Pt. 334 (2) For in-lieu fee project sites, real land bank) must be consistent with the estate instruments, management plans, terms of this part. or other long-term protection mecha- (2) In-lieu fee program instruments. All nisms used for site protection must be in-lieu fee program instruments ap- finalized before advance credits can be- proved on or after July 9, 2008 must come released credits. meet the requirements of this part. In- (u) Long-term management. (1) The lieu fee programs operating under in- legal mechanisms and the party re- struments approved prior to July 9, sponsible for the long-term manage- 2008 may continue to operate under ment and the protection of the mitiga- those instruments for two years after tion bank site must be documented in the effective date of this rule, after the instrument or, in the case of um- which time they must meet the re- brella mitigation banking instruments quirements of this part, unless the dis- and in-lieu fee programs, the approved trict engineer determines that cir- mitigation plans. The responsible party cumstances warrant an extension of up should make adequate provisions for to three additional years. The district the operation, maintenance, and long- engineer must consult with the IRT be- term management of the compensatory fore approving such extensions. Any re- mitigation project site. The long-term visions made to the in-lieu fee program management plan should include a de- instrument on or after July 9, 2008 scription of long-term management must be consistent with the terms of needs and identify the funding mecha- this part.
    [Show full text]
  • NALF Fentress SSA U.S. District Court FBI Camp Peary Colonial National
    Camp Peary Army Corps Naval of Engineers Weapons Station Yorktown Colonial National SSA Yorktown National Naval Station Historic Park SSA Cemetery/Battlefield Norfolk Cheatham Plum Tree Naval Support Annex USCG U.S. District Island NWR Activity Court Training Center Hampton Roads Yorktown Hampton National Camp Elmore/ Cemetery Camp Allen Ft. Monroe Maritime Administration National NATO SSA National Defense Monument VA Allied Command Reserve Fleet Medical Center Animal & Transformation Plant Health Joint Forces Inspection DEA U.S. District Staff College Service GSA Court Animal & JEB Jefferson Plant Health Little Creek-Ft Story Joint Base Laboratory Inspection Langley-Eustis Service Colonial EEOC National U.S. Customs Historic Park NASA House Veterans Langley GSA Research NOAA Marine USCG Shore Center Center Ops Center Infrastructure FBI USCG Station Jamestown GAO National Atlantic Logistics Center Little Creek Historic Site Hampton Roads Naval Museum ATF Cape Henry USCG Craney Island OPM Memorial Atlantic Area USCG Base Lafayette SSA Portsmouth River Annex Secret USCG GSA U.S. Service 5th District Navy Exchange Additional NOAA Nansemond Customs House St. Helena Command Sites and offices NWR Annex NAS Oceana Joint Staff NRTF LEGEND Animal & St. Juliens Hampton Roads Driver DEA Dept. of the Interior Plant Health Creek Annex Camp Pendleton Dept. of Agriculture Inspection Dam Neck Dept. of Defense Service DOL Area Maritime Office Annex Dept. of Homeland Security Administration Maritime Administration GSA Dept. of Justice SSA Dept. of Energy Dept. of Commerce Naval Medical Back Bay Dept. of Veterans Affairs Farm Center NWR Norfolk Naval NALF Fentress Dept. of Labor Services Portsmouth Shipyard NASA Agency Farm Prepared by: Center Great Dismal Services Naval Support Activity Swamp GSA Agency Northwest Annex Center NWR SSA Updated 11-13 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Colonial National Yorktown National Historic Park Cemetery/Battlefield Plum Tree Island NWR Ft.
    [Show full text]
  • (WESTON) History of Working at DOD Facilities Within Pennsylvania
    Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON) Successful History of Working at DOD Facilities within Pennsylvania •WESTON is local PA firm with Corporate Office in West Chester, PA •Established in 1957, more than 500 employees in PA • Over 30 years of RI/FS experience under CERCLA •Letterkenny Army Depot (Chambersburg, PA) •Working at installation from 1989 to present with PADEP, EPA and the Army •Various environmental projects from SI, RI, FS through removals. •Tobyhanna Army Depot (Tobyhanna, PA) •Working at installation from 1996 to present with PADEP, EPA and the Army •Various environmental projects including munitions projects. •Tobyhanna Artillery Range Formerly Used Defense Site (Tobyhanna, PA) •Working at site from 2003 to present with PADEP, EPA and the Army •Conducted RI/FS and numerous removal actions for munitions •Fort Indiantown Gap (Annville, PA) •Working at site from 2003 to present with PADEP, EPA and the Army •Conducted various environmental projects, site assessments, RI, and removals •Defense Distribution Supply Point (Harrisburg, PA) •Working at site from 1994 to present with PADEP, EPA, and the Army •Various environmental projects from SI, RI, FS through removals. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) and Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) Flow Chart Preliminary Site Remedial Feasibility CERCLA Assessment Inspection Investigation Study Evaluate Alternatives Needing Characterize Site, GOALS Identify Releases &Identify Further Risk Assessment Investigation Preferred Remedy Note CERCLA activities after RI Current Stage of MMRP Work contingent upon risk evaluation Contracted to WESTON Proposed Public Decision Remedial Remedial Plan Comment Document Design Action Propose Design/Work Implement Public Authorize Selected Plan for Chosen Participation Selected Remedy Remedy Remedy Remedy MMRP Remedial Investigation Fieldwork Objective is to characterize nature and extent of munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) to determine if remediation is needed based on risk.
    [Show full text]
  • A Concise History of Fort Monmouth, New Jersey and the U.S
    A CONCISE HISTORY OF FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY AND THE U.S. ARMY CECOM LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT COMMAND Prepared by the Staff of the CECOM LCMC Historical Office U.S. Army CECOM Life Cycle Management Command Fort Monmouth, New Jersey Fall 2009 Design and Layout by CTSC Visual Information Services, Myer Center Fort Monmouth, New Jersey Visit our Website: www.monmouth.army.mil/historian/ When asked to explain a loyalty that time had not been able to dim, one of the Camp Vail veterans said shyly, "The place sort of gets into your blood, especially when you have seen it grow from nothing into all this. It keeps growing and growing, and you want to be part of its growing pains." Many of the local communities have become very attached to Fort Monmouth because of the friendship instilled...not for just a war period but for as long as...Fort Monmouth...will inhabit Monmouth County. - From “A Brief History of the Beginnings of the Fort Monmouth Radio Laboratories,” Rebecca Klang, 1942 FOREWORD The name “Monmouth” has been synonymous with the defense of freedom since our country’s inception. Scientists, engineers, program managers, and logisticians here have delivered technological breakthroughs and advancements to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen for almost a century. These innovations have included the development of FM radio and radar, bouncing signals off the moon to prove the feasibility of extraterrestrial radio communication, the use of homing pigeons through the late-1950s, frequency hopping tactical radios, and today’s networking capabilities supporting our troops in Overseas Contingency Operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide for the Selection of Personal Protective Equipment for Emergency First Responders
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice Law Enforcement and Corrections Standards and Testing Program Guide for the Selection of Personal Protective Equipment for Emergency First Responders NIJ Guide 102–00 Volume I November 2002 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 John Ashcroft Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels Assistant Attorney General Sarah V. Hart Director, National Institute of Justice For grant and funding information, contact: Department of Justice Response Center 800–421–6770 Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Guide for the Selection of Personal Protective Equipment for Emergency First Responders NIJ Guide 102-00, Volume I Dr. Alim A. Fatah1 John A. Barrett2 Richard D. Arcilesi, Jr.2 Charlotte H. Lattin2 Charles G. Janney2 Edward A. Blackman2 Coordination by: Office of Law Enforcement Standards National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8102 Prepared for: National Institute of Justice Office of Science and Technology Washington, DC 20531 November 2002 This document was prepared under CBIAC contract number SPO-900-94-D-0002 and Interagency Agreement M92361 between NIST and the Department of Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). NCJ 191518 1National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Law Enforcement Standards. 2Battelle Memorial Institute. National Institute of Justice Sarah V. Hart Director This guide was prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Military Factbook Presented by the Secretary of Veterans and Defense Affairs 2020 Contents
    Virginia Military Factbook Presented by the Secretary of Veterans and Defense Affairs 2020 Contents Study Overview ..................................... 2 How Virginia Ranks .................................. 4 Statewide Defense Economic Impacts ................ 6 Region 1 ............................................ 8 City of Montgomery. 10 City of Radford .................................................11 Pulaski County .................................................11 Region 2 ........................................... 12 Nottoway County ..............................................14 Brunswick County ..............................................15 Dinwiddie County ..............................................15 Region 3 ........................................... 16 Chesterfield County ............................................18 Prince George County ..........................................19 Region 4 ........................................... 20 Accomack County. 22 City of Norfolk .................................................23 City of Chesapeake .............................................24 City of Portsmouth .............................................25 City of Hampton ...............................................26 City of Virginia Beach ...........................................27 City of Newport News ..........................................28 York County ...................................................29 Region 5 ........................................... 30 Caroline County ................................................32
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2016 Economic Impact Analysis of Maryland's Military Installations
    FY 2016 Economic Impact Analysis of Maryland’s Military Installations Prepared for Maryland Department of Commerce Daraius Irani, Ph.D., Chief Economist Michael Siers, Interim Director of Research Ellen Bast, Senior Research Associate Jacob Leh, Research Associate I Catherine Menking, Economist Nick Wetzler, Economist December 18, 2018 Towson, Maryland 21252 | 410-704-3326 | www.towson.edu/resi FY 2016 Economic Impact Analysis of Maryland’s Military Installations RESI of Towson University Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Methodology Overview .................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Statewide Economic Impacts ........................................................................................... 8 1.3 Comparison between FY 2012 and FY 2016 Impacts ..................................................... 10 2.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 12 3.0 Methodology .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 513 Part 334—Danger Zone and Restricted Area Regulations
    Corps of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, DoD Pt. 334 (2) For in-lieu fee project sites, real land bank) must be consistent with the estate instruments, management plans, terms of this part. or other long-term protection mecha- (2) In-lieu fee program instruments. All nisms used for site protection must be in-lieu fee program instruments ap- finalized before advance credits can be- proved on or after July 9, 2008 must come released credits. meet the requirements of this part. In- (u) Long-term management. (1) The lieu fee programs operating under in- legal mechanisms and the party re- struments approved prior to July 9, sponsible for the long-term manage- 2008 may continue to operate under ment and the protection of the mitiga- those instruments for two years after tion bank site must be documented in the effective date of this rule, after the instrument or, in the case of um- which time they must meet the re- brella mitigation banking instruments quirements of this part, unless the dis- and in-lieu fee programs, the approved trict engineer determines that cir- mitigation plans. The responsible party cumstances warrant an extension of up should make adequate provisions for to three additional years. The district the operation, maintenance, and long- engineer must consult with the IRT be- term management of the compensatory fore approving such extensions. Any re- mitigation project site. The long-term visions made to the in-lieu fee program management plan should include a de- instrument on or after July 9, 2008 scription of long-term management must be consistent with the terms of needs and identify the funding mecha- this part.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Us Biological Warfare Programs Volume I
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING COMMAND 5183 BLACKHAWK ROAD ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21010-5424 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: December 3, 2009 Office of the Chief Counsel Mr. John Greenewald Dear Mr. Greenewald: This is the final response to your FOIA request dated March 13, 2009, for a copy of all documents pertaining to a 1977 incident that the U.S. Army had staged a mock biological attack on San Francisco, California. The Research, Development and Engineering Command located the record, US Army Activity in the U.S. Biological Warfare Program, 1942-1977s, Volume 1. 25 February 1977. I enclosed a redacted version of the record. Additionally, we located an excerpt from the book Clouds of Secrecy, The Army’s Germ Warfare Tests over Populated Areas, written by Leonard A. Cole. Mr. Cole’s book is available to the general public on the open market. The redacted record was subject to FOIA exemption (b)(2) HIGH. Exemption (b)(2) HIGH protects substantial internal matters where disclosure would risk circumvention of a legal requirement. Additionally, the redacted information is sensitive to internal Army operations. Mr. Brian May, Research, Development and Engineering Command’s Freedom of Information Act Officer, conducted a brief search of the Defense Technical Information Center secure library and determined additional records may exist. If you seek additional information on this subject, I suggest you submit a Freedom of Information Act request with the Defense Technical Information Center using the title of the enclosed record. I provided the Defense Technical Information Center, Freedom of Information Act Office’s website below.
    [Show full text]