ny-brownfields.com

Relevant Brownfields Literature

Note: To access relevant publications by the Site Administrator, press "Administrator" button and scroll to the bottom of the page.

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Brownfields Research Consortium--a partnership among
UWM faculty, government agencies, businesses, and nonprofit organizations involved in the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield properties--has established a website that provides a very extensive bibliography of brownfield publications.  It can be accessed at:
http://www.uwm.edu/MilwaukeeIdea/CEO/brownfields/index.html .  Notice added 1/7/05

New: October 2004!
New Brownfields Report Profiles Successful Projects and Programs

   The National Association of Local Government Environmental
Professionals (NALGEP) and the Northeast-Midwest Institute have released
a new report, Unlocking Brownfields: Keys to Community Revitalization.
This report includes more than 50 profiles of successful brownfields
projects and programs, five critical brownfields messages that document
the evolution of brownfields success in America, and the “10 Keys to
Brownfields Revitalization.” 

National Governors Association Report (2000)

The Center for Best Practices of the National Governor's Association (NGA) published a report in 2000, called "New Mission for Brownfields," by Joel Hirschhorn (Natural Resources Policy Studies).  The report concluded that five states--Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania--are "leading the way" in brownfields management because they don't focus on cleaning up of older industrial sites "without consideration of the broader goals of the community or region." 

Instead, these states have successfully integrated brownfields programs "into state, regional, and local growth and land use planning."  Factors driving this success are identified as follows (p. 7):

• "Having the governor provide clear and public support for the importance of brownfields in advancing the state's quality of life and economy."

• "Viewing brownfields redevelopment from an area-wide perspective ...."

• "[I]ntegrating brownfields cleanup and redevelopment objectives into state growth planning."

• "Broadening state brownfields programs to include involvement of state planning agencies and other appropriate state and local government agencies."

• "... [S]trong involvement of state organizations besides environmental regulatory agencies."

• "Working to eliminate all remaining barriers to brownfields redevelopment and improving the full package of incentives, assistance, and liability reduction offered to developers."

• "Considering the redevelopment of brownfields sites in the full context of 'smart' community design."

• "Ensuring the protection of public health while shifting emphasis to the broader economic development value of brownfields sites."

Competitive Enterprise Institute Report (2000)

Also in 2000, the Competitive Enterprise Institute published a report, "Revitalizing Urban America- Cleaning up the Brownfields," by freelance writer and policy analyst Dana Joel Gattuso.

The report attributes the success of state voluntary cleanup programs (compared to the strict liability approach of federal Superfund) to their more innovative, flexible approaches:  "Unlike federal requirements authorized under CERCLA, legislation enacted by the states emphasizes: incentives over enforcement; relief from unfair and debilitating liability laws to reduce risks to owners, developers, and lenders; risk-based remediation standards over one-size-fits-all; and financial incentives."  (p. 5).

The report identifies the following elements with "the most effective state programs" (pp. 5-8):

• Voluntary Programs: giving potential owners, developers, and lenders a stake in site re-use and cleanup through incentives "is a less costly and faster alternative to the federal Superfund approach which focuses on cleaning up a relatively small number of highly contaminated sites" (quoting from General Accounting Office, "Superfund: Proposals to Remove Barriers to Brownfield Redevelopment," GAO/RCED-97-87, March 4, 1997).

• Liability Relief: reforming state liability laws to protect parties that are not responsible for contamination.

• Remediation Requirements: moving away from rigid and unrealistic cleanup standards by providing for cleanup levels to be largely determined based on future land use, and by using risk-based remediation standards for determining how clean is clean.

• Public Participation: informing residents about cleanup efforts and enabling them to have a voice in implementation procedures    (p. 7)

• Financial Incentives: encouraging private sector participation by including grants, loans, and/or tax incentives in state financial packages (p. 7).

   HUD Report (1999)

At about the same time, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, released "Assessment of State Initiatives to Promote Redevelopment of Brownfields" (prepared by ICF Consulting, Fairfax, VA, and The E.P. Systems Group, Inc., Louisville, KY [HC #5966, Task Order 13], December 1999).

This study reviewed Voluntary Cleanup and economic development program structures in 12 states (California, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin).  Three of these states were then selected for in-depth study: Massachusetts, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  (Data were said to be accurate "as of July 1998.")

The HUD report drew four primary conclusions and policy implications (pp. 6-7):

• "Variable cleanup standards appear to help redevelopment of contaminated sites, even those converted to residential land uses."  (p. 6).  Overall, more than 85% of the projects in the 3 study states were mitigated to levels other than "background" or "residential," suggesting that developers believe that the new regulatory options reduce their costs.

• "Institutional controls should be made available, since they appear to stimulate redevelopment investment." (p. 7).  There was a relatively high utilization of institutional controls (45% of PA projects, 32% of MI projects, 18% of MA projects), suggesting that "the reputed reductions in property values associated with the corresponding limits on alternative uses are not a serious problem, and that the liability relief that accompanies the limits may stimulate more investment."

• "... [f]inancial incentives should  not be considered essential for all sites" (p. 7).  However, in "economically depressed areas that have trouble attracting new investment..., subsidies in addition to regulatory relief may be needed to overcome non-environmental impediments to redevelopment of sites burdened by past contamination."  Rather, the key factor cited in motivating project initiation were "state regulatory interventions."  And, it was "the new flexibility in regulations" that "made the redevelopment projects more attractive to investors."

• Regulatory relief is especially important in promoting redevelopment (all else being equal) "the larger the previously polluted site."  (p. 7).  "[I]t appears that the sites with the more complex past pollution gained the most from the cost containment benefits made possible by the variable cleanup standards that are part of most state VCPs."  Non-residential uses also benefited more than residential uses because they were able to take greater advantage of the flexibility afforded by variable cleanup standards.

U.S. Conference of Mayors Report (2000)

The U.S. Conference of Mayors released its third annual brownfields report on February 24, 2000, "Recycling America's Land: A National Report on Brownfields Redevelopment - Volume 3" (February 2000).  The report compiles information from 231 responding cities (in 42 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico).

Among the key findings:

• 210 cities estimated they had more than 21,000 brownfield sites (average = 100 sites per city)

• 201 cities had more than 81,000 acres of abandoned or underutilized land (average = 403 acres per city)

• 93 cities included rail properties in their brownfields estimates; 78 estimated they had a total of 5,555 acres associated with rail activity

• 144 respondents were from smaller cities with less than 100,000 people; they accounted for 3,049 brownfield sites (average = 21 sites per smaller city) totaling 27,223 acres (average = 189 acres per smaller city).

Major impediments to brownfields redevelopment:

• Lack of cleanup funds (90%)

• Liability issues (71%)

• Need for environmental assessments (60%)

Potential benefits from brownfields redevelopment:

• Increasing the city's tax base (86%)--by up to $2.4 billion (estimated by 177 cities)

• Job creation (75%)--189 cities estimiated that approximately 554,419 new jobs could be created

• Neighborhood revitalization (73%)

• Environmental protection (53%)

• 186 cities (81%) said they could support additonal people given the existing infrastructure

• 118 of these cities estimated they could support a cumulative total of more than 5.8 million people--nearly the population of both Los Angeles and Chicago combined

Participating cities from New York State:

Northeast-Midwest Institute "State of the States" Report (2001)

Charles Bartsch, Rachel Dean & Bridget Dorfman (Northeast-Midwest Institute), "Brownfields 'State of the States': An End-of-Session Review of Initiatives and Program Impacts in the 50 States" (Fourth Annual Edition, November 2001).

Environmental Law Institute Analysis of State Superfund Programs (1998)

Environmental Law Institute Research Report, "An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 1998 Update."

“An Assessment of Brownfield Redevelopment Policies: The Michigan Experience" (1999)

 by Richard C. Hula (for the PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government), November 1999.

The ECS / IECD Land Use Report (2001), http://www.ecsinc.com/landreuse/home_page/images/horizontal-home-art_04-over.gif

   ECS, Inc., an environmental insurance carrier (“an underwriting manager providing integrated environmental risk management solutions to business and industry worldwide”), in coordination with the International Economic Development Council, has produced the first two[1] in an annual series of reports reviewing “media coverage of brownfield redevelopment across the United States.”  The 2001 report drew from a database of 317 brownfield-related articles discussing 346 specific brownfield sites. 

   The 2001 report found that more than 112,000 acres or 175 square miles of brownfields were redeveloped in the U.S. during 2000-2001.   Industrial uses account for close to 70% of former uses on brownfields sites slated to be redeveloped, but only 14% of sites were redeveloped for industrial uses.  (This was down from 22.1 percent for industrial uses in the 2000 report.)   Public, residential and mixed uses (28%), cultural and recreational uses (25%), and commercial uses (14%) were more frequent end uses or were at least as frequent.  Residential uses (11%) and public facilities (8%) were the least common end-uses.  Where project developers were identified in articles, private sector developers predominate (62% of the time).[2]  This suggests that, if brownfields redevelopment is to be encouraged, it is necessary to provide regulatory and financial incentives that will be attractive to private developers.

   Among the “trends and conclusions” of the 2001 report were that “public sector involvement continues to be strong in brownfield redevelopment” (i.e., because “a variety of public sector tools including financial and regulatory incentives” are needed to spur redevelopment, given the difficulty in overcoming “hurdles” with traditional methods), and that “public-private partnerships are becoming increasingly creative” (e.g., insurance assistance, tax increment financing, low-interest loans “and other creative programs”). 

Both the 2001 and 2001 reports found that “a number of states consistently appear at the forefront of brownfield redevelopment activity”—at least based on “number of sites under planned or current redevelopment.”  Leading the list both years were: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[3]

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress # 97-731, Superfund and the Brownfields Issue (by Mark Reisch, Analyst in Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division), updated January 16, 2001.  http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/Waste/waste-10.cfm

GWU / EPA Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Cooperative Agreement, FINAL REPORT, "Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the Redevelopment of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors, Relative Weights and Areal Differentials," September 2001.  Submitted to: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.  By: Jonathan P. Deason, Ph.D., P.E., George William Sherk, J.D., M.A., and Gary A. Carroll, M.S., Environmental and Energy Management Program, Department of Engineering and  Applied Science, The George Washington University, 2130 H Street, N.W., Suite 740, Washington, D.C. 20052.  http://www.gwu.edu/~eem/Brownfields/project_report/report.htm

  This report was prepared for EPA by investigators in the School of Engineering and Applied Science at The George Washington University, on “Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the Redevelopment of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors, Relative Weights and Areal Differentials.”[1]  The study addressed four questions:

·        the extent to which brownfields redevelopment reduces development pressures on undeveloped suburban or rural areas (answer:  a redevelopment project utilizing one acre of brownfields would have required an average of 6.2 acres of greenfields for an industrial project, 5.6 acres of greenfields for a residential project, and 2.4 acres for a commercial project—the overall mean was 4.5 acres);

·        economic benefits induced by the redevelopment of brownfields (they developed a “benefit-based approach” to setting brownfields redevelopment priorities, focusing on environmental benefits—reduced health risks, environmental justice, prevention/reduction of air pollution, and creation of green spaces, economic benefits—job creation, improved labor market efficiency, increased tax revenues, spill-over economic effects, reduced congestion, accidents and highway costs, and prevention of housing abandonment, and social benefits—increased accessibility of services, affordable housing, restored sense of control and neighborhood empowerment, improved city services, and aesthetics);

·        federal statutes and regulations that either inhibit the redevelopment of brownfields or encourage the development of greenfields; and

·        state and local statutes and regulations that either inhibit the redevelopment of brownfields or encourage the development of greenfields (taken together, the issues identified as having these effects at all levels of government were: the need for strong local leadership, the “market mismatch” associated with differential access to capital and the resulting economic incentive to develop greenfields, crime [actual and perceived], and the competition between local governments to attract development and assemble parcels into developable tracts.

            The most noteworthy “lessons” to emerge from these

             various studies are that:

                           -The same basic principles appear to guide most of the effective brownfields and VCP programs.

                           -The nature and quality of state programs are constantly changing and evolving.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), BROWNFIELDS: Information on the Program of EPA and Selected States (Dec. 2000), GAO-01-52.

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), in a December 2000 Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, “selected five states that were identified by EPA and other knowledgeable organizations as operating some of the largest or most innovative brownfields programs in the nation: Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.”  The report compared the brownfield assessment and cleanup assistance programs of these states with those of U.S. EPA.

            Two earlier reports that compared state brownfield programs are primarily of historical interest because of the subsequent evolution of many of these programs. 

EI Environmental Information, Ltd survey report (1996)

   In 1996, EI Environmental Information, Ltd. did a national survey[1] of brownfield states and ranked them based on criteria which (separately) evaluated their program effectiveness and each state’s “market opportunity for brownfields redevelopment.”  The top 10-ranked states based on program scores (listed alphabetically) were: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebreska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.  (Interestingly, this list includes 4 of NGA’s top 5 brownfield states—all but Maryland, which had not yet established a statutory brownfields program.)   The criteria used in this ranking were: existence or lack of legislation; the type of legislation in place; the age and maturity of the program; the availability of public funds for cleanup and redevelopment; the program’s cost-recovery fee structure; program enrollment; waiting lists to enter or exit the program; and, where available, the estimated time to closure for voluntary cleanup projects.  The top-10 states by “weighted market scores” (based on the state’s ability to estimate the number of its potential brownfield sites, the existence of an actual verifiable inventory, and the ability to name any particular cities or districts that were or had the potential to become focal points for cleanup and redevelopment activity) were: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  (This group includes all 5 of NGA’s top group of 5.) 

   EI concluded that the “most complete, sophisticated and effective brownfields redevelopment programs can be found in the Northeast and the Midwest,” with Connecticut topping the list, followed by Missouri and Pennsylvania, and that “top market opportunities” can also be found in the Midwest and Northeast (Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey top this list, followed by Ohio, Massachusetts and Michigan). 

Consumers Renaissance Development Corporation (CRDC) ranking study (Oct. 1998)

In October 1998, Consumers Renaissance Development Corporation (a non-profit corporation formed in May 1996 to support the implementation of brownfield projects in Michigan) released a report comparing the 41 significant voluntary cleanup / brownfield redevelopment programs that existed at that time.[1]  The report utilized both published studies and interviews to evaluate each state based on 10 criteria—identified from a review of existing brownfield critiques: liability protection, cleanup criteria, financial incentives, climate and attitude of state and local governments, state oversight, existence of [or prospects for] an MOA with EPA, related policy issues, program participation requirements, fee structure associated with participation, and eligible parties and sites.  Overall, the top-ranking 5 states were: Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Illinois / Wisconsin (tied for ##4 /5).  The bottom-ranking 5 states were: Idaho (#41), Kentucky / Virginia (tied for ## 40 / 39), and Arkansas / New York (tied for ## 38 / 37).  Maryland ranked 29 /30 and Massachusetts ranked 25.  New York scored only 5 of a possible 30 points in the “Liability Protection” category because of the lack of a lender liability protection policy and the provision of a No Further Action letter subject to reopeners.