Devens: Developing a master plan to guide clean-up decisions at a closing military base
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Chapter 9
Devens: Developing a master plan to guide clean-up decisions at
a closing military base
During the past two decades, the Department of Defense (DoD) has closed some 350 military
installations across the country under the 1988 Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) and its
amendments. To soften the economic blow of base closure on local communities, the framers of BRAC
developed a number of provisions to spur redevelopment of closing installations and streamline clean-up
at bases contaminated by past uses in order to return the properties to productive uses. This can be a
difficult balancing act for all parties involved, particularly at the 15% of bases closed under BRAC which
are Superfund sites on the National Priorities Lists.
This short account of the former Fort Devens, a Superfund site in central Massachusetts, and now a
planned community and eco-industrial park, examines the way in which coordinated reuse planning and
innovative oversight strategies were able to influence both the level of clean-up and the long term
management of residual contamination. The Fort Devens example is relevant to community groups
dealing with clean-up issues at other federal facilities. At Fort Devens, state agencies, local governments,
and citizens watchdog groups did not sit on the sidelines as hapless bystanders while the DoD
maneuvered on clean-up issues and designed new redevelopment policies. On the contrary, state and
local stakeholders anticipated and responded with insight and creativity to the demands of the BRAC
process. Through broad based community planning efforts and innovative mechanisms to implement the
plans, local stakeholders – Including watershed protection groups, affordable housing advocates and
local environmental watchdog groups – were able to address clean-up needs in the context of other
important social goals, such as economic development, efficient infrastructure use, job creation, and
affordable housing.
Lesson Learned
1. Public envisioning mechanisms, such as charrettes, enabled diverse communities to go
beyond narrow parochial interests and devise a reuse plan based on broad principles of
sustainability.
2. The local watchdog group, PACE was able to consistently make a strong case for more
extensive groundwater studies and more stringent clean-ups by showing the connections
among contamination levels, groundwater flows and regional water quality. The importance
of addressing off-site impacts was a critical part of the Devens Reuse Plan.
3. Public involvement at Devens was well supported by the state of Massachusetts through long
term funding, enabling legislation that set out the rules and responsibilities of key institutions.
4. The Devens Reuse Plan was not meant to gather dust on a shelf but rather, as the expressed
vision of state and local stakeholders, it informed DoD’s clean-up decisions. The Devens
Enterprise Commission is a viable model for linking economic redevelopment with effective
long term oversight of residual contamination.
61Background
In 1991 the Department of Defense announced that Fort Devens, an army base located some 35 miles
north of Boston, would close within five years. The base had been established in 1917 from land acquired
by the federal government from four surrounding central Massachusetts towns, Ayer, Shirley, Harvard,
and Lancaster and had been used primarily as a mobilization center during the first and second world
wars and the Korean conflict. Under the closure plan, some 5,000 acres of what was called the South Post
would remain under Army control while the 4,400 acre balance would be sold to the State of
Massachusetts.
The decision to close Ft Devens was part of process spelled out in the 1988 Base Realignment and Closure
Act (BRAC). The Act provided Congress and the Department of Defense with a process to close and
realign military installations across the country. The Act called for an independent bipartisan
commission that would create "base realignment and closure" recommendations focusing primarily on
achieving savings by reducing excess infrastructure. The list of base closure recommendations had to be
approved in its entirety by Congress and the President. In many ways BRAC was born out of contention
and pork barrel politics. Before BRAC, the Department of Defense found it increasingly difficult to close
military bases. For example, at Ft Devens some 15,000 military personnel and their families lived on the
base and supported the local economy in the adjacent towns. Moreover, bases like Fort Devens could
bring in millions of dollars of federal money each year, and members of Congress and others sought to
protect these economically lucrative but outdated military installations.
BRAC legislation, in effect, sought to make base closure more politically palatable. The base closure
legislation designates a local redevelopment authority, or LRA, at each closing military installation to
which DoD will lease or transfer land. Each LRA represents key stakeholders affected by a base closure
and is responsible for developing and implementing reuse plans. While DoD is responsible for making
clean-up decisions, the LRA is responsible for developing a reuse plan that includes proposed land use.
DoD policy states that clean-up decisions will, “to the extent reasonably practicable,” attempt to
facilitate the land use stated in approved community reuse plans.
While an LRA is meant to focus on reuse, DoD policy calls for Restoration Advisory Boards (RAB)s to be
formed at all closing installations to address clean-up issues. RABs are meant to reflect the diverse
interests within a community, review clean-up documents, and provide advice to DoD on restoration
efforts. Under certain conditions, RABs have been an effective mechanism to give voice to community
concerns about clean-up. At most installations under BRAC, DoD has set up two processes---one focused
on site reuse and the other on clean-up, with more resources typically given to the LRA than the RAB.
Instead of integrating clean-up and reuse decisions the policy design can make it harder to do so.
However, at Fort Devens, as we discuss below, clean-up and reuse decisions were closely linked. The
RAB functioned effectively in part because of the close collaboration and trust between a citizens
watchdog group, People of Ayer Concerned about the Environment (PACE) and state regulators. In
addition to the PACE’s participation in the RAB, local environmental groups, such as the Nashua River
Watershed Association took part in other opportunities – town meetings, forum, etc. – to help regulators
and the DoD identify connections between reuse and watershed health in the Fort Devens remediation
and redevelopment efforts. And the LRA at the installation, MassDevelopment, a quasi-public economic
development agency, was able to implement a far reaching and community supported reuse plan that
62could demonstrate “the interdependence of economic development and environment protection and the
symbiosis of public and private uses”, a far broader remit than most LRAs pursue.1
Contamination at Fort Devens
Fort Devens was listed on the National Priorities List (aka Superfund) in 1989, and two years later, the
DoD and EPA signed a Federal Facilities Agreement, which established the procedural framework and
timetable for the Army to develop and implement clean-up activities. EPA’s role was to provide
regulatory oversight. In several site wide assessments, the Army identified some 330 sites that required
environmental evaluations. After further investigation, 236 of the initially identified sites were approved
for no further action, leaving nearly 100 sites that the Army was required to remediate. These included
former storage tanks, maintenance yards, landfills, spill sites, former fueling stations and electrical
transformer leaks.
Soil sampling revealed the presence of arsenic, PCBs, solvents from cleaning parachutes, pesticides,
petroleum from some 60+ leaking underground storage tanks, as well as unexploded ordnance. Sediment
sampling in ponds revealed high levels of heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and mercury.
Data from groundwater monitoring wells indicated elevated levels of explosives, solvents, and
percholorate.
Since 1989, DoD has removed soil contaminated by fuel, pesticides, chlorinated solvents and other
contaminants. It has installed asphalt covers over areas of contamination and a groundwater treatment
system. It has consolidated landfill wastes and put in place long term monitoring of groundwater.
To date, all of the 95+ operable units (OUs) have Records of Decision in place, and there is only one
active clean-up remaining – the Shepley Landfill – as well as eight on-going groundwater pump and treat
operations. The 2010 Five Year Review concluded that the Shepley Landfill remedy was protective in the
short-term, but that it must be updated to ensure long-term protectiveness. The review concluded the
remedies in place were protective of human health and the environment as implemented and exposure
pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.”2 Approximately 1,100 acres of the
former military base have been transferred to other federal agencies and almost 3,000 acres has been
transferred to the LRA, MassDevelopment. DoD is holding onto twenty five properties, so called lease
parcels, that will be conveyed to MassDevelopment 150 acres of the former Fort Devens remains as leased
parcels that will be transferred as the remaining remedial actions are implemented over the next few
years.
Local and State efforts to shape reuse and clean -up
For decades, Fort Devens had been the primary economic engine for much of north central
Massachusetts, employing some 5,000 military personnel and civilians. Many believed that in what was
then a stagnant economy, the closure of the base and the loss of thousands of jobs would lead to severe
economic dislocation throughout the region. The reuse of the site became a priority not only for the
towns bordering the site (Ayer, Harvard, Lancaster, and Shirley) but also for the state’s most powerful
politicians and the Massachusetts’ congressional delegation.
1 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 1994. Devens Reuse Plan. The Joint Boards of Selectmen of: Town of Ayer, Town of Harvard, Town
of Lancaster, Town of Shirley. The Massachusetts Government Land Bank. p.i.
2 HydroGeoLogic, Inc. 2010, Five-Year Review Report for Former Fort Devens Army Installation. Devens, MA. p.i.
63EPA guidance and DoD policy helped to support site reuse. EPA guidance asks its program managers to
consult with local land use planning officials and the local public early in the remedial investigation to
help develop a clearer sense of the “reasonably anticipated future uses” of the site. These reasonably
anticipated future land uses are supposed to be taken into consideration when developing clean-up
objectives. The BRAC process also emphasizes the need to integrate clean-up and reuse priorities. BRAC
legislation requires DoD to give “substantial deference” to an LRA redevelopment plan. While DoD is
responsible for making clean-up decisions, the LRA is responsible for developing a reuse plan that
includes proposed land use. DoD policy states that clean-up decisions will, “to the extent reasonably
practicable,” attempt to facilitate the land use stated in approved community reuse plans. In some case,
DoD can argue that locally preferred uses may not be practical due to costs or technical challenges that
would make it infeasible to clean up the property to that degree.
At Devens, however, DoD based its clean-up on a 1994 visionary
reuse plan for an eco-industrial park that was created by
extensive public deliberation at the local level. The local effort
was supported by state enabling legislation, Chapter 498 of the At Devens, however, DoD
Acts of 1993, which designated MassDevelopment as the LRA, based its clean-up on a 1994
created the Devens Enterprise Commission to serve as a one- visionary reuse plan for an eco-
stop permitting agency for redevelopment at Devens, and industrial park that was created
provided $200 million in bonds for property acquisition, by extensive public deliberation
maintenance, and infrastructure development. In the words of at the local level.
one knowledgeable participant the “reuse plan” locked in the
clean-up which included industrial, commercial and residential
uses. We’ll look at these issues in more detail below.
What public participation mechanisms were used to reach consensus about site
reuse?
At Devens public participation was built, in part, on the New England tradition of town meetings, where
local citizens assemble to form a legislative body to vote on local budgets and policies. This form of local
democracy however could have been a stumbling block to the redevelopment of the site if the three
towns that bordered the site – Shirley, Ayer, and Harvard – could not find ways to cooperate. As one
would expect, officials from each town had their own agendas about redeveloping the base. Shirley
wanted to develop much needed infrastructure (e.g., library, schools, etc); Ayer wanted to ensure the
reuse plan would create jobs and maintain its tax bases and that new development would not compete
with its downtown businesses. Harvard, which had no direct gate to the base unlike the other two
towns, and had less interaction with the base, was concerned about preserving open space.
64One of the main objectives of BRAC, beyond
clean-up, is to encourage substantial public
benefit from base reuse such as job growth,
creation of conservation areas, improved habitat,
etc. These broad, regional impacts were not
addressed initially by the more parochial
concerns of the individual towns.
Public involvement in the redevelopment began
at the outset with the consultation of local
residents by the Fort Devens Redevelopment
Board, established by then Governor Weld in
1991.3 Over 90% of respondents ranked
environmental protection and conservation as
high priorities in any re-use plans. In the same
year the three towns formed the Joint Board of
Selectmen4 (JBOS) to wrestle with broader base
clean-up and reuse issues. To help develop a
more regional vision and to build on the public
outreach efforts by Fort Devens Redevelopment
Board, the JBOS organized a four day charrette, a
hands on, envisioning process, for the future of
Fort Devens led by the Boston Society of
Landscape Architects. Local officials and town
residents were involved, but the charrette also included facilitators from engineering, planning, and
architectural firms, as well as state and federal regulators. The central themes emerging from the
charrettes included the following:
(i) the preservation of natural resources and systems;
(ii) maintenance of the land as a single planning unit;
(iii) increasing the economic base of the region using the principles of industrial ecology;
(iv) using the existing built environment;
(v) resourceful use of land including sustainable agricultural practices;
(vi) encouragement of mixed use and diversity and
(vii) holistic thinking.5
In January 1994, the state of Massachusetts passed comprehensive legislation to create the Devens
Regional Enterprise Zone, a new public agency, the Devens Enterprise Commission (DEC) to review and
approve all future uses at the base, and designated MassDevelopment, to redevelop the base, and $200
million in bonding capacity to fund the redevelopment. The funding, however, was conditional and
would be available only if the three towns together developed and approved a reuse plan and related
bylaws by majority vote at special town meetings no later than December 31, 1994.
3 Devens Enterprise Commission, 2000.
4 In Massachusetts, selectmen are local elected officials who typically serve part time.
5 Devens Enterprise Commission, 2000. Sustainability Indicator Report, progress report. Available on the web at:
http://www.devensec.com/sustainreport.html
65With funding from MassDevelopment and the federal government’s Office of Economic Adjustment
(OEA), the JBOS organized a total of 12 community workshops, organized into two phases that attracted
from 80- 180 persons. In the first phase, facilitated by reuse planning firms, participants focused on
developing goals for the planning effort and finding consensus on a preferred alternative. In Phase II, the
workshops turned to developing zoning bylaws that when used in conjunction with the reuse plan
designated specific types of land uses. All the land on the base was placed in one of fifteen zoning
designations developed through the comprehensive planning processes and included, the eco-industrial
park, recreation and open space, residential use, commercial areas, as well as special overlay areas defined
for sensitive zones such the Nashua River system and the aquifer that underlies portions of the site.
The plan took a comprehensive view of environmental quality, but it also recognized the constraints of
redeveloping a Superfund site and called for “an aggressive schedule for completion of Superfund related
activities” and sought to “expedite remediation in those areas most critical to reuse.”6 Unlike many
redevelopment efforts, the plan sought to minimize the off-base impacts of development in relation to air
quality, traffic, noise, viewsheds, and water quality.
To receive feedback on the plan and to refine it during the planning process, the reuse planning team set
up task forces and subcommittee on particular issues, conducted public hearings, gave town meeting
presentations, interviewed and met with local business groups, as well as DoD and state and federal
regulators. By most accounts, the planning process fostered tremendous public involvement and local
citizens and organizations were able to not only select the general land uses for the new Devens but to
participate in more detailed master plan decisions about open space, environmental protection, and
infrastructure development.
Citizens and environmental groups were able to participate effectively in reuse planning for a number of
reasons: state and federal funding provided expert facilitation for more than a year; in addition to
monthly community workshops, task forces, comprised of citizens from town planning boards were
formed to go in-depth on specific issues such as water resources, transportation, infrastructure, and the
development of acceptable Bylaws; and participants had access to critical data sources, including some
extensive spatial data on the physical aspects of the site (wetlands, floodplains, sensitive habitat,
infrastructure, building footprints, contamination sites, historical sites, etc) and economic and real estate
information that could help determine feasible reuse strategies.
The Base Reuse Plan was approved by each town at a special town meeting at the end of 1994. The plan
and its rules and regulations remain in force and provide a unified approach to land use controls and
permitting at Devens.
What types of trade-offs were considered in future use dialogues?
The Devens Reuse Plan is a remarkably far sighted document. It seeks to balance economic, social, and
environmental needs, and in took into account Massachusetts’s weak economy in the early 1990s. The
planning process considered a number of trade-offs---open space provision versus expanding the regional
economic base; affordable housing versus commercial development. In broad terms, there was
considerable tension between the approach pushed by MassDevelopment and state officials which was
to create a regional development node that could attract international companies such as Bristol-Myers
Squibb and biotech firms to invigorate the state economy, and what could be the fierce independence of
the local towns with regard to infrastructure provision, upgrading a water treatment plant, school
construction, roads, and conservation issues.
6 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 1994. Devens Reuse Plan. p .18.
66How were the goals of the 1994 Reuse Plan implemented in practice?
The Reuse Plan embodied principles of sustainable development and the vision of the many stakeholders
who took part in the planning process. The real test of plan, however, is how it is carried out in the field –
how its intent influences the behavior and choices of various groups – DoD, regulators, local officials,
economic interests, watchdog groups – targeted by the plan. The key principles of the plan were
implemented on the ground in three ways: 1) the work of the Devens Enterprise Commission (DEC)
which serves as the regulatory body at Devens; 2) the cooperative relationship between the
environmental group PACE and state regulators that helped lead to more stringent clean-ups and more
flexible end uses; and 3) a comprehensive planning process that helped build political support to sustain
the goals of the Reuse Plan.
The Devens Enterprise Commission
The Reuse Plan outlines how land is to be allocated to private and public uses across the base. It is a
mechanism to control land use at the site and during the active phase of the clean-up guided clean-up
decisions. DoD has undertaken more stringent clean-ups at parcels destined for residential use and has
remediated to a lesser extent parcels that are now used for industrial or commercial activities.
The Plan and its associated zoning bylaws, however, were not intended to regulate or limit the kinds of
activities (e.g., excavation, well drilling) that might expose persons to residual contamination during or
after the clean-up. For example, the zoning bylaws had no protocols or procedures to address
unexploded ordnance during site excavations or how excavators should manage soil removal. Nor did the
plan prohibit future end users of the properties—industries, commercial tenants, households--from
engaging in practices that might expose them to residual contamination or inadvertently breach a cap
over contaminated soil.
The Reuse Plan was buttressed by a series of regulations and rules developed and implemented by the
Devens Enterprise Commission (DEC) in the mid-1990s. Chapter 498 established the Devens Enterprise
Commission (DEC) to serve as a regulatory body governing the development process at Devens. The DEC
consists of 12 members appointed by the governor, six of whom are nominated by the host communities
of Ayer, Harvard and Shirley. What is particularly innovative about the DEC is that its staff integrates
what are typically diverse functions of local government. The DEC serves as a local planning board,
conservation commission for wetlands protection, board of health, zoning board of appeals, and historic
district commission. It issues variances, building permits, wetlands approvals and conducts site plan
reviews to address stormwater management, utility provision, etc. Applying for a new construction
permit in most municipalities often involves dealing with the public works department, a sewer
authority, building inspection, and others. By contrast, DEC is an innovative one-stop permitting system.
The DEC’s streamlined permitting system is not only a means to attract companies to locate to the
former base. It also has important implications for the long term management of residual contamination.
Through permit provisions the DEC can require applicants to comply with more general land use
policies. For example, the DEC has developed a soil management policy to manage the excavation and
removal of soils at Devens. Due to concerns about soil contamination and unexploded ordnance, the soil
management plan prohibits the transport of soils off site, except under certain conditions (e.g., approval
based on soil tests, soil screening, etc). The building permit issued by the DEC makes the end user of the
site responsible for complying with the DEC’s broader soil management policies. The permit asks
applicants if soil will be disturbed as part of their project. If the applicant checks the yes box, he or she is
required, before excavation, to be trained in safe soil handling techniques focusing on unexploded
ordnance. As a condition of the permit, the applicant must also comply with the provisions and protocols
67of the soil management plan. In this way, the DEC permitting systems provide an additional layer of land
use regulation to manage residual contamination.
In broader terms, the DEC has put forward a number of
plans to lessen the likelihood that institutional controls
(e.g., well drilling prohibition, soil excavation ban) or an While DoD sought to comply with
engineering control, such as an asphalt cap over clean-up requirements under federal
contaminated soil, will be knowingly or unknowingly and state statutes, it wanted a faster
compromised. In addition to the soil management plan time line to characterize site
discussed above, the water management plan prohibits contaminants and set clean-up
private well use or drilling new wells without approval standards. Local environmental
from DEC. Similarly the stormwater management plan groups, such as People of Ayer
was designed to have some flexibility and to Concerned about the Environment
accommodate site clean-up needs. The plan seeks to (PACE), and the Massachusetts
promote storm water systems that facilitate local Department of Environmental
groundwater recharge, but it recognizes how increased Protection (MADEP) argued for more
recharge in land designated Areas of Concern could extensive site characterization to
have negative impacts on ongoing environmental better understand how on site
remediation. Through its regulations and permitting, contamination might move through
the DEC has been able to translate the broad goals of the site and affect the region’s
sustainable development – environmental protection, ecological resources.
economic f into the site reuse process.
Alliance between PACE and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP)
One key objective in the Devens Reuse plan is to “protect and enhance Devens’ ecological resources of all
kinds, particularly the aquifer and the Nashua River system”.7 And while the Devens Reuse Plan formed
the basis for DoD’s clean-up effort, there was considerable negotiation about what level of clean-up was
required to meet these broad ecological goals. As one would
expect, tensions emerged among regulators, citizens groups,
and DoD. While DoD sought to comply with clean-up
The DEC’s streamlined requirements under federal and state statutes, it wanted a
permitting system is not only a faster time line to characterize site contaminants and set
means to attract companies to clean-up standards. Local environmental groups, such as
locate to the former base. It People of Ayer Concerned about the Environment (PACE),
also has important implications and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
for the long term management Protection (MADEP) argued for more extensive site
of residual contamination. characterization to better understand how on site
contamination might move through the site and affect the
region’s ecological resources.
Because there were some 600+ underground storage tanks
at Fort Devens, of which about 10% leaked, the MADEP played a significant role determining clean-up
levels at parcels that impacted groundwater and contributed to public drinking water supply wells.
These determinations were made under Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 21J since fuel oil is not
7 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 1994. Devens Reuse Plan. p.4
68regulated under the federal Superfund statute. The MADEP was focused on acquiring better data on the
areal extent, levels, and movement of contamination on and off the site. It was aggressive in testing
groundwater and lobbying to put in adequate monitoring/sampling wells to get a better sense of the fate
and transport of chemicals. And because such testing and monitoring required additional costs and took
more time than DoD wanted, MADEP and DoD could have disagreement about the level of clean-up
required to protect and enhance Devens water resources.
PACE was an important ally for MADEP and would raise similar concerns as a member of the
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). At monthly RAB meetings, and with the help of a technical advisor
to help interpret DoDs technical data, PACE was able to be a persistent and constructive critic of
proposed clean-up strategies put forward by DoD and its consultants. PACE strategy was to put more
emphasis into the “nitty gritty technical issues” during the RAB meetings than at the public hearings. 8
PACE could focus on technical issues, in part, because the interest in protecting water resources in the
region was a focal point for the work of other environmental groups, such as the Nashua River
Watershed Association.
Building political support to sustain the goals of the Reuse Plan
We have described how the reuse plan for Devens emerged from a meaningful public participation
strategy that included charettes, a series of facilitated community workshops, and a determination to
redevelop the site according to broad sustainable development principles – economic development, social
equity, and environmental protection. But without the resources of the state, the Reuse Plan may not
have been as successful. Through Chapter 498, the state administration brought a degree of institutional
capacity and resources that was indispensable to the success of the project. The enabling legislation
established the DEC, and as we noted above, that agency was able to translate the goals of the Reuse Plan
into specific rules and regulation and to develop robust land use controls. MassDevelopment has been
another key player. Under the enabling legislation the quasi-public agency purchased 4,400 acres from
the Army in 1996 for $17 million and has broad powers to manage the redevelopment of the base. It has
had the resources and political support to push for more extensive clean-ups at key redevelopment
parcels. For example, MassDevelopment was able to convince DoD to use sonar or infra-red ground
penetration to detect unexploded ordnance instead of using a statistical technique to take sample. This
was enormously time consuming and expensive for the Army, but the Army in the end agreed to it given
the importance of the parcel for the redevelopment of the site. Better site characterization and more
extensive clean-ups, for MassDevelopment opened up more opportunities to reuse the site.
Lesson Learned
1. Public envisioning mechanisms, such as charrettes, enabled diverse communities to go beyond
narrow parochial interests and devise a reuse plan based on broad principles of sustainability.
The charrettes, and the expert facilitation, built on the long-standing New England tradition of
town meetings to help participants better understand the regional and ecological impacts of the
clean-up and reuse plan.
2. The local watchdog group, PACE, along with other environmental organizations, such as the
Nashua River Watershed Association and the open space committee, were able to consistently
make a strong case for more extensive groundwater studies and more stringent clean-ups by
showing the connections among contamination levels, groundwater flows and regional water
quality. The importance of addressing off-site impacts was a critical part of the Devens Reuse
Plan.
8 Personal communication, Julia Corzenzwit, June 24, 2011.
693. Public involvement at Devens was well supported by the state of Massachusetts through long
term funding, enabling legislation that set out the rules and responsibilities of key institutions
(DEC, MassDevelopment, the towns), and the work of the Joint Board of Selectman and its
subcommittees to give voice to local concerns.
4. The Devens Reuse Plan was not meant to gather dust on a shelf but rather, as the expressed
vision of state and local stakeholders, it informed DoD’s clean-up decisions. The Devens
Enterprise Commission was established by state legislation to implement the broad vision of the
Plan and its bylaws. The DEC developed rules and regulation to manage residual contamination
and acted as a one stop permitting shop to integrate the various functions of local government –
site plan review, stormwater management, building permits, well drilling review, soil excavation
permitting. The DEC is a viable model for linking economic redevelopment with effective long
term oversight of residual contamination.
70You can also read
