Future Land UseFeedback

Motivators or drivers for the revitalization of a site can determine the course of the revitalization process. A want, need, or desire to revitalize, especially at a community level, can add tremendous momentum to a project. These drivers can help advance cleanup and revitalization activities, while achieving significant environmental, economic, and social benefits. Such drivers include those issues associated with ecological, human health, social conditions, economic status, and political climate.

Hazardous substance, by definition, poses a substantial or potential threat to human health and the environment. After the cleanup process, the levels of harmful chemicals in the air, soil, and groundwater are decreased, improving the quality of the environment and public health in nearby communities. The desire for these results often drives the cleanup and initiates revitalization of potentially contaminated sites.

It is essential that a thorough site assessment and risk assessment (if applicable) of the site be performed to identify the cause, nature, and extent of contamination and the possible threats to human health or the environment. The results can be used in determining goals for cleanup, quantifying risks, determining acceptable and unacceptable risk, and developing effective cleanup plans that do not cause unnecessary delays or costs in the revitalization and reuse of the property.

Future land use may be limited in some cases by the historical use of the land, such as when the type and level of site contamination effects remediation alternatives. Land use assumptions affect the identification of exposure pathways that are evaluated during the risk assessment and may also have an impact on the remediation strategy selected for the site. Evaluating historic and current land use is critical in determining whether there is a current risk associated with a site. Evaluating future land use is important for the identification of sensitive populations as well as estimating potential future threats and possible future liability. The results of the risk assessment determine the degree of remediation necessary, which may include land use restrictions, to ensure long-term protection at these sites.

Remedial action objectives should be developed for the reasonably anticipated future land use. Remedial action objectives specify: contaminant(s) and media of concern, exposure route(s) and receptor(s), and the remediation goal(s) for each exposure route. Local governments can implement land use controls applicable to the future land use such as: restrictions on groundwater use, changing mixed-use zoning laws, and assisting state and federal agencies in monitoring compliance during the operation and closure of industrial complexes.

The sheer number and cost of hazardous substance cleanups has led to a reaction against conventional hazardous substance remediation programs at both the federal and the state levels. The number of Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCPs) and revitalization site initiatives has risen dramatically in response.

In most communities, revitalization of all but the most valuable sites is undertaken through the joint participation of public and private sectors. Participation by the public sector is contingent upon a social or public purpose to be served by a revitalization project. Examples of social drivers include job creation, the elimination of blight and poverty, environmental protection, recreational needs, open space, wetlands preserves, sustainable communities. Environmental justice concerns may also be significant social drivers for revitalization of potentially contaminated sites.

Community interest can be a major factor in initiating and implementing revitalization projects. Before considering the revitalization of a potentially contaminated site, it is important to assess public support and to determine how to incorporate and encourage community participation. One challenge for sponsors of revitalization projects is to determine how to convince members of the community that active involvement is worthwhile and to provide the community with an opportunity to have direct and meaningful impact on decisions.

Economic drivers in the cleanup of potentially contaminated sites are factors that benefit the investor or the economy of the community. For example, investors can often purchase potentially contaminated sites at a reduced price when the present owner cannot finance the required cleanup. In some cases, property owners represent an obstacle to revitalization that can be effectively addressed through economic incentives. After the investor has completed the cleanup, the property is often sold or revitalized for a profit. To determine whether an economic driver exists, the investor should analyze the current market value of similar real estate and predict the value of the site once revitalization is complete. Economic drivers for the public sector are job creation and increased tax revenues. Additional economic drivers include a dense labor market and and vibrant urban centers that makes urban infill development more desirable and economical. High construction cost and fuel prices affect the cost and location of revitalization.

The emergence of experienced, willing investors and lenders, and the emergence of reliable methods for evaluating contaminated property and products to quantify and control environmental risks are significant developments in the environmental industry. The federal government also has developed tax and grant programs to encourage revitalization of potentially contaminated sites and to provide more readily accessible funding for companies. The increased interest by investors in contaminated properties has meant that many properties with little contamination, and, therefore, fewer barriers, have already been purchased. Eventually only the properties with more severe contamination and other potential barriers to revitalization will be available in the marketplace.

The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Brownfields Redevelopment prepared by the Northeast Midwest Institute summarizes established quantifiable impacts of brownfields redevelopment in the areas of environmental, economic, community, and fiscal effects. The report found quantitative evidence of significant marketplace shifts away from industrial reuse and toward mixed use and residential.

Federal, state, and local governments, agencies, and non-governmental entities are taking an increasingly active role in promoting the identification, cleanup, and revitalization of potentially contaminated sites. EPA issued a directive, EPA Memorandum: Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process, May 1995, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive No. 9355.7-04, encouraging discussions among local land use planning authorities and communities to be conducted early in the site assessment process. This directive ensures that site remedies meeting future land use objectives and protecting human health and the environment are selected.

Many states have initiated programs and others have modified their existing programs to incorporate changes needed to deal with potentially contaminated sites. In addition, with increasing awareness of environmental issues, politicians have started to add environmental topics to their platforms and to endorse legislation and projects that improve the environmental and public health of communities.

The role of local government in integrating revitalization activities can include: coordinating community relations, brokering reuse, providing and coordinating public funding, acting as liaison with environmental regulators, assuming liability for environmental conditions, and preventing the revitalization of a site for a reuse that may contribute to future contamination. Some progressive local governments are creating information and resources to assist with all phases of the revitalization of potentially contaminated sites.

Local governments also are in an ideal position to facilitate and promote the successful reuse of revitalization properties. Local officials and municipal managers often play an integral role in bringing together the diverse interests involved in a revitalization project. However, their role as facilitators is often difficult because of the groups involved and the complexity of the issues. For example, the regulatory framework that determines the outcome of many revitalization projects falls under the jurisdiction of federal and state agencies. Most of the necessary capital to fund revitalization is controlled by private financial institutions, and many decisions about reuse of property are in the hands of the property owner.