[SOURCE] - The EPA estimates that there are more than 11,000 contaminated sites covering 15 million acres in the United States that have the potential to be used for generating solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy. The technical potential—without factoring in cost and other practical feasibilities—of these lands is immense: 920,000 megawatts from solar, 17,000 megawatts from wind, 50,000 megawatts from biomass, and 3,200 megawatts from geothermal. An EPA interactive website shows the potential for all 50 states....
[MORE]
Focusing on challenges, stories, and issues important to the redevelopment of Brownfields in the South . http://www.southernbrownfield.com
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Brownfields, Greyfields, and REDFields... Oh, my!
[SOURCE: Miller-McCune: By Jonathan Lerner]
In the language of urbanism, “greenfields” usually means rural land at the metropolitan edge, where suburbia metastasizes. “Brownfields” are former industrial sites that could be redeveloped once they are cleaned of pollution. “Greyfields” — picture vast empty parking lots — refer to moribund shopping centers. Recently another such locution was coined: “redfields,” as in red ink, for underperforming, underwater and foreclosed commercial real estate.
Redfields describe a financial condition, not a development type. So brownfields and greyfields are often redfields, as are other distressed, outmoded or undesirable built places: failed office and apartment complexes, vacant retail strips and big-box stores, newly platted subdivisions that died aborning in the crash.
Now comes “Redfields to Greenfields,” a promising initiative aimed at reducing the huge supply of stricken commercial properties while simultaneously revitalizing the areas around them.
[MORE]
In the language of urbanism, “greenfields” usually means rural land at the metropolitan edge, where suburbia metastasizes. “Brownfields” are former industrial sites that could be redeveloped once they are cleaned of pollution. “Greyfields” — picture vast empty parking lots — refer to moribund shopping centers. Recently another such locution was coined: “redfields,” as in red ink, for underperforming, underwater and foreclosed commercial real estate.
Redfields describe a financial condition, not a development type. So brownfields and greyfields are often redfields, as are other distressed, outmoded or undesirable built places: failed office and apartment complexes, vacant retail strips and big-box stores, newly platted subdivisions that died aborning in the crash.
Now comes “Redfields to Greenfields,” a promising initiative aimed at reducing the huge supply of stricken commercial properties while simultaneously revitalizing the areas around them.
[MORE]
Lenders’ Tolerance for Environmental Risks: 2009 Survey of bankers and environmental experts finds consensus along the risk continuum
[SOURCE]
In the environmental risk market, who are the market makers? In the world of real estate, the most influential
market makers are lenders. Lenders define risks that can be financed and those that must be mitigated. Lenders drive voluntary cleanups of properties and act as de facto regulators. Sixty of the nation’s most prominent environmental risk managers, bankers, and consultants recently took part in a survey designed to find out how they evaluate environmental risk associated with real estate. The survey, conducted by Partner Engineering and Science, a national engineering, environmental, and LEED consulting firm, attempted to find participants’ tolerance levels. For example, at what stage does a consultant recommend a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) based on the findings of a Phase I ESA? What facts would represent
enough risk for a lender to reject a loan without further assessment of the perceived risk, or accept the risk with a no-further-action recommendation and loan approval? In other words, where are the lines drawn?
[MORE]
In the environmental risk market, who are the market makers? In the world of real estate, the most influential
market makers are lenders. Lenders define risks that can be financed and those that must be mitigated. Lenders drive voluntary cleanups of properties and act as de facto regulators. Sixty of the nation’s most prominent environmental risk managers, bankers, and consultants recently took part in a survey designed to find out how they evaluate environmental risk associated with real estate. The survey, conducted by Partner Engineering and Science, a national engineering, environmental, and LEED consulting firm, attempted to find participants’ tolerance levels. For example, at what stage does a consultant recommend a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) based on the findings of a Phase I ESA? What facts would represent
enough risk for a lender to reject a loan without further assessment of the perceived risk, or accept the risk with a no-further-action recommendation and loan approval? In other words, where are the lines drawn?
[MORE]
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
10 Steps To Determine Brownfield TIF-ability
[SOURCE: polskylaw.com] Tax increment financing stimulates private development in underperforming areas by using the tax revenue boost from property revitalization to pay a portion of project costs. Most states make some provision for municipalities to designate TIF districts. The incentives offered can make the difference between an intractably underutilized area and a feasible development deal. These 10 steps can help pave the way toward successful TIF funding. [MORE]
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Environmental Grant Opportunity: Five Star Restoration Program
OVERVIEW
The Five Star Restoration Program seeks to develop community capacity to sustain local natural resources for future generations by providing modest financial assistance to diverse local partnerships for wetland, riparian, and coastal habitat restoration. The National Association of Counties, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), the Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Southern Company, and FedEx, are pleased to solicit applications for Five Star.
KEY ELEMENTS OF A FIVE STAR PARTNERSHIP
· On-the-Ground Restoration: Projects must include on-the-ground wetland, riparian, in stream and/ or coastal habitat restoration.
· Environmental Education: Projects must integrate meaningful education into the restoration project either through community outreach, participation and/or integration with K-12 environmental curriculum.
· Measurable Results: Projects must result in measurable ecological, educational and community benefits.
GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS AND FUNDING AVAILABILITY
Nominal funding is available nationwide from EPA, as well as from our corporate sponsors targeting several southeastern states and 12 U.S. cities. In 2011, NFWF anticipates the following funding will be available:
· US EPA Office of Water: Approximately $200,000 is available for projects throughout the United States, with a focus on regions not served by other funders.
· Southern Company: Approximately $200,000 is available from Southern Company and its operating companies (Georgia Power, Alabama Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power) to support projects in the Southern Company service area, which includes:
ü Georgia (excluding Union, Fannin and Towns Counties)
ü Alabama (excluding Lauderdale, Colbert, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, Marshall, Morgan, Jackson, DeKalb, Cherokee and Cullman Counties)
ü The Florida Panhandle (west of the Apalachicola River)
ü Southeast Mississippi (23 counties, from Meridian to the coast, with the west boundary running from Pearl River County to Union County)
Visit www.southerncompany.com/aboutus/about.aspx to view a map of the Southern Company Service Area.
· FedEx EarthSmart Outreach: Approximately $375,000 is available from FedEx’s EarthSmart Outreach program to support urban conservation and restoration in the following 11 metropolitan areas:
Boston | Los Angeles | San Francisco/Oakland |
Chicago | Memphis | Seattle |
Dallas | Newark | Washington, DC |
Indianapolis | Pittsburgh |
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
The Five Star Restoration Program is open to any public or private entity that can receive grants. While partnerships are encouraged to include state and federal agencies, those entities may not serve as the grantee unless the community partners demonstrate that the state or federal agency is best suited to coordinate the community-based project.
GRANT SIZE
Grants will vary in size, duration and scale. In general, smaller-scale, one-year projects will be eligible for grants $10,000 – $25,000. Two-year, larger-scale projects will be eligible for grants $10,000 – $40,000. We anticipate the average grant award will be $20,000 – $25,000.
MATCH
A minimum 1:1 match of cash or in-kind/contributed goods and services to funds requested is expected. The ratio of matching funds offered by the applicant is one criterion considered during the review process. All potential sources of match, including cash contributions and dollar equivalent value of in-kind goods and services (including volunteer services) should be listed on the application.
To be eligible, matching contributions must be raised and dedicated specifically for the project, and be voluntary in nature (mitigation, restitution, or other permit or court-ordered settlements are ineligible).
RESTRICTIONS
Grant funds may not be used for political advocacy, fundraising, lobbying or litigation activities or to support projects resulting from legal requirements (e.g., permit conditions, mitigation, settlement agreements). However, grant funds may be used to support projects that enhance or improve upon existing baseline compliance efforts.
GRANT GUIDELINES
· Applicants must fully address all three key elements of a Five Star Project discussed above. (e.g., projects involving only research, monitoring, planning, or restoration; or projects involving only environmental education or outreach will automatically be ineligible).
· Grant requests must be for $10,000 – $40,000.
· Projects should be completed within one to two years of award.
· Partnerships must include at least five organizations (“Five Stars”) that contribute to project success through funding, land, workforce support, technical support and/or other in-kind services.
Partnerships often include a variety of public and private entities, such as:
ü Government agencies: State, local, federal and/or tribal governments and agencies
ü Youth groups: schools, youth conservation corps, Scout troops, civic and environmental clubs, etc.
ü Colleges and Universities: academia, departments, and local cooperative extension districts
ü Resource Conservation and Development Councils, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts
ü Conservation Organizations
ü Businesses or Corporations
ü Local citizens and community groups
ü Technical and design experts: local environmental and restoration consultants, landscape architects, environmental planners, and others that offer technical and design expertise
ü Foundations or other funders
- Proposals seeking larger grants (i.e., >$25,000) are expected to demonstrate greater matching contributions, a larger number of project partners, and more significant ecological and educational objectives.
· Grant funds may not be used to cover indirect costs unless they meet both of the following conditions:
ü The grantee organization has a federally-approved indirect rate; and
ü Indirect costs do not exceed 15% of the total grant request (even when the federally-approved rate is greater than 15%).
· Organizations or projects that have received funding under this program are eligible to reapply; however, preference may be given to those that previously have not received support.
· To receive consideration for FedEx funding, projects in the 12 targeted cities must include a Spring Community Service Day in which FedEx employees may participate in a restoration project (e.g., planting trees or native plants, removing invasive plants, removing trash from urban waterways, installing rain gardens, etc.).
CRITERIA FOR COMPETITIVE APPLICATIONS
Highest priority will be given to projects that:
· Describe how the project implements, or is complementary to, an established conservation and/or watershed management plan.
· Clearly and specifically describe how the project will help meet ecological and conservation needs of priority species and habitats in priority watersheds.
· Provide measurable and meaningful conservation outcomes (and relate them to formal conservation plans if applicable).
· Include diverse partners (i.e., broad range of partner types) from both the public and private sectors.
· Build new, or enhance existing, partnerships (and explain the significance). For projects that address a formal conservation or watershed management plan: the agency or organization that developed the plan is a partner in – or at least is supportive of – the project.
· Demonstrate the use of education, training, and public outreach in shaping and sustaining human behavior towards the conservation goals. Proposed activities should be highly collaborative, address strategic conservation needs, and be broadly applicable/easily transferable.
SUBMISSION
The Five Star Online Application will be live and accessible in Easygrants on December 16. When you are ready to begin the application process, go to www.nfwf.org/Easygrants.
If you are a new user to Easygrants, first you will need to register by clicking on “Register here” and enter your applicant information. Once you are registered, select “Five Star 2011” from the list of programs and follow the instructions.
If you already are registered in Easygrants, login using your e-mail address and password and then select “Start a New Application”. After you have started the application process, you may save your application in progress and return another time to complete and submit it.
DEADLINE
Applications must be submitted online in Easygrants by midnight EST, Monday, February 14.
TIMELINE
- Thursday, December 16 (2:00 - 3:30 p.m. EST) Webinar for Potential Applicants
- Monday, February 14 (midnight EST) Proposals due via Easygrants
- June 2011 Anticipated awards announcement
ASSISTANCE WITH APPLICATIONS
There will be a webinar for applicants on Thursday, December 16, at 2:00-3:30 p.m. EST. The webinar will review the RFP and provide an overview and walk-through of EasyGrants. First time applicants and anyone with questions about the RFP are strongly encouraged to participate in the webinar. (Follow the registration instructions at: www.nfwf.org/FiveStar.) A recording of the webinar will be posted online for those who cannot make the Dec. 16 date.
CONTACTS
For questions not addressed in the RFP or webinar, please contact the following individuals:
Carrie Clingan Claire Thorp (Mid-West and Western states)
cclingan@naco.org claire.thorp@nfwf.org
National Association of Counties National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
(202) 942-4246 (415) 243-3104
Douglas Stephens Amanda Bassow (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast )
dstephens@wildlifehc.org amanda.bassow@nfwf.org
Wildlife Habitat Council National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
301-588-8994 (202) 595-2476
For more information on the Five Star Restoration Program, please visit NFWF’s Five Star website at www.nfwf.org/FiveStar, or EPA’s Five Star website at www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star.
Five Star Easygrants HelpSheet
(This help sheet refers sequentially to each section and field in Easygrants required for this program.)
PROJECT INFORMATION
- Grant Amount Being Requested from NFWF: Minimum is $10,000. Maximum is $40,000.
- Matching Contributions Proposed: A minimum 1:1 match of cash or in-kind/contributed goods and services to funds requested is expected. Enter the total matching contributions anticipated.
- Projected Grant Start Date: Projects should begin between July and December 2011.
- Projected Grant End Date: Projects should be completed within one to two years of the start date.
- Project Title/Name: Please do not call your project “Five Star Restoration Project”. Give it a short, descriptive name that will uniquely identify it and distinguish it from the competition. (60 character limit)
- Project Description: This two sentence project summary should use the first sentence to describe what your project will achieve and the second sentence to describe what is special about your project. (200 character limit)
- Project Abstract: Provide an overview of your project, including measurable outcomes (i.e., specify acres or linear feet to be restored plus any education or partnership capacity outcomes anticipated); proposed activities; and identify all partner organizations that are participating in the project. (1500 character limit)
- Keyword(s): You must select at least one Keyword. You are encouraged to use the “Help” feature in Easygrants to identify Keywords. Most applicants’ Keywords will include: Conservation Action, Conservation Threat, and Major Habitat Type.
- Sub-keyword(s): You also must select at least one Sub-keyword. You are encouraged to use the “Help” feature in Easygrants to review definitions of Sub-keywords. Most applicants will select at least one of the following Sub-keywords:
§ Under Major Habitat Type: Freshwater – Wetland; Freshwater – Rivers, lakes and streams and riparian zone; Coastal – Estuaries and Bays; Coastal – Coastal beaches, dunes and shoreline
§ Under Conservation Threats: Residential & Commercial Development; Agriculture & Aquaculture; Human Intrusions & Disturbance; Natural System Modifications; Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes; Pollution
§ Under Conservation Actions: Land/Water Management; Education & Awareness
PROJECT LOCATION
- Project Location Country(ies): Select “North America – United States” from the drop-down menu.
- Project Location State/Province: Please select all states and territories that apply.
- Project Location U.S. Congressional District(s): Please select all U.S. Congressional Districts in which the proposed project will take place.
- Project Location Description: Please include the county/city where the project will occur as well as the most appropriate scale of watershed. Longitude and latitude are especially helpful. (200 character limit)
ACTIVITIES and METRICS
- FOR EACH MAJOR ACTIVITY: List the “Proposed Activity” and then select a “Metric” from the drop down list. If the list does not include a metric appropriate for the activity, you also may enter a new metric; however, we ask that wherever possible you use the metrics provided so that we may standardize our data collection. Then for each metric, provide the “Value at Grant Completion” which should be the gains attributable to the project at the end of the grant. After entering one activity, metric and value, click “add”. Then repeat these steps until you have provided a metric and value for each major activity.
UPLOADS
- To complete your application, you must upload several files into Easygrants. The most important is your actual proposal narrative. The Five Star Proposal Narrative may be downloaded from Easygrants at any time and completed at your leisure. It must be uploaded back into your Easygrants application before your application may be submitted. The narrative may not exceed six (6) pages in total length (including questions which should not be deleted).
Upload | Required or Optional | Notes |
Narrative | Required | Template provided. Six-page limit. 11 pt font minimum |
Board of Trustees* | Required | Provide a list of members. If your organization is not a nonprofit and does not have a Board, upload a document stating that none exists. |
A-133 Audit* | Required | If you organization has not expended over $500,000 in Federal funds in the last year, upload a statement saying that an A-133 Audit is not required. |
GAAP audited financial statements* | Required | If your organization does not have GAAP audited financial statements, you may upload a balance sheet and profit/loss statement. |
IRS Form 990* | Required | If your organization is not a nonprofit, upload a document stating that a Form 990 is not required. |
Statement of Litigation | Required | Template provided. |
Letters of Support | Optional | Recommended from significant partners, especially those providing matching contributions. |
Map of project site | Optional | Strongly recommended for restoration projects. |
Photos | Optional | Compress photos to minimize file size. |
*If your organization has recently applied to NFWF for a grant and this information already is on file and up to date, they will not appear to you as required uploads in EasyGrants.
BUDGET
- This section provides budget detail for the “Grant Amount Being Requested from NFWF.” It should not include matching funds.
- Please note that no part of the budget (neither NFWF funds nor match) may include: general administrative overhead, indirect costs, contingencies or miscellaneous costs; advocacy/lobbying; fundraising; litigation; terrorist activities; nor activities in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS
- List each source of matching contributions separately in the space provided. Matching contributions may include both cash and in-kind contributions. It is our expectation that each of the five partners listed in the proposal narrative will be providing some form of cash or in-kind matching contribution.
- Please note the restrictions on use of matching funds above. Regarding indirect: if your organization has a Federally-negotiated indirect rate, which, when applied to this project would exceed the NFWF cap of 15%, any difference may count as a matching contribution (i.e., “foregone indirect”).
- The total of all line items entered in this section must equal EXACTLY the total “Matching Contributions Proposed” in the PROJECT INFORMATION section.
PERMITS and APPROVALS
- If Permits and/or Approvals are required for this project, please list all permits and/or approvals required and their status.
REVIEW AND SUBMIT
- When you are ready to submit, each section of your proposal should be indicated “Complete” with a green check mark in the “Status” column. If any section is indicated “Incomplete” with a red “X”, you will not be able to submit and must go back and check your work in each section that is “Incomplete”.
- To view and save your proposal you may click on the “View PDF” button. This function creates a composite file with all of the fields and uploads, which can be saved as a stand-alone document. Please note that the “Applicant-identified Reviewer Information” section will appear empty in your submission because it is not required for this program.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Oklahoma City's Downtown To See $1.5 Billion Worth Of Development.
The Oklahoman (12/26, Lackmeyer) reported, "Moments of celebration and plenty of debate surrounded downtown development in 2010, but one observation is without challenge - Oklahoma City's urban core is going through yet another dramatic transformation" as work is about to get underway "on $1.5 billion in private and public construction downtown." The article notes that the upgrades are contrasted "with the start of MAPS in 1993, which originally totaled $237 million and was expected to generate about $100 million in private investment." The article also notes several stories that involved the downtown region during the year, including the creation of the 50-story, $750 million Devon Energy Center which will become "the tallest in the state when completed."
[ARTICLE]
[ARTICLE]
FL - USF grad Students study "Greening Newtown"
[from HERALD TRIBUNE]
Report culls ideas for Newtown neighborhood
USF grad students point to bus stops, lights and food
( page of 2 )
NEWTOWN - Of the 32 bus stops that run through Newtown, all but six have uneven landings that could be hazardous to those in wheelchairs. The study noted a lack of healthy fresh foods, especially now that Winn-Dixie is closing. USF grad students point to bus stops, lights and food.
- USF study on 'Greening Newtown' (PDF - 7015kb)
Only one stop has a covered shelter. Only five have benches -- and of those five benches, four are broken.
That Newtown's bus stops are in disrepair is of little surprise to riders, who often complain about missing slats on benches and crumbling, unsteady pavement when they board routes on the city's north side.
Their anecdotal evidence, though, has been collected and quantified in a newly released report from graduate students at the University of South Florida who examined a slate of issues facing the predominantly black neighborhood.
[MORE]
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Five Mile Creek Greenway - Jefferson County, AL
Overview
The Five Mile Creek Greenway project applied an innovative approach to brownfield redevelopment by converting multiple brownfield sites along the creek into usable greenspace, establishing a powerful framework for a 28-mile greenway system through Jefferson County, Alabama. The greenway protects water quality and restores the creek as an asset to the five cities through which it flows—Tarrant, Fultondale, Birmingham, Brookside, and Graysville. Restoration of the Five Mile Creek watershed by these cities required a combination of innovative thinking and partnerships as well as pooling their collective talents.
The cities along Five Mile Creek share a history of mining and foundry work. The industrialization of Five Mile Creek led to years of neglect and pollution of large segments of the watershed, earning it the nickname of “Creosote Creek.” The cities have struggled to survive economically, in large part due to the negative reputation of the creek. As a result, it was imperative to generate a new public image for the stream by improving recreational opportunities and taking steps to protect the aquatic life sustained by the watershed. A significant component of this effort involves assessing and remediating several properties on the banks of Five Mile Creek to mitigate the continued discharge of contaminants into the watershed. Successful management of the select sites will provide a roadmap for future cleanup activities benefiting multiple communities.
Participants
• Freshwater Land Trust
• Five Mile Creek Partnership
Primary Reason for Redevelopment
This area was selected for redevelopment by local leaders who were willing to work together to turn a polluted stream into an asset and amenity. When the redevelopment project was initiated, residents from all of the communities along Five Mile Creek participated in public meetings. They identified the major environmental concerns in each city and then selected priority sites that were of greatest local concern.
Approach
Working through the Jefferson County Commission, a meeting was arranged to bring the five cities together with other interested stakeholders to discuss improving Five Mile Creek’s health. The result was the historic signing of an official memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the cities, the Jefferson County Commission, the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission, the Freshwater Land Trust, and the Cawaco Resource Conservation and Development Council, a local non-profit working on water quality issues. The MOA stated that the partners would work together to clean up the creek by creating a series of parks and greenways along its 28-mile corridor.
The MOA proved to be a catalyst for momentum. Local leaders worked with their Congressional delegation to secure $1.2 million in transportation funding for the first leg of the greenway. Federal partners, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), matched private funds raised by the Freshwater Land Trust for water quality and flood studies. The Alabama Power Service Organization (an employee association) adopted the Five Mile Creek Greenway as a volunteer project and began conducting regularly scheduled workdays along the creek. In addition, private landowners began giving land or offering it for sale to the partnership for the park and greenway system.
Through the Freshwater Land Trust, the Five Mile Creek partners applied for and received a $200,000 assessment grant from EPA’s brownfield program. The land trust organized a series of public meetings in each community along the creek, which allowed hundreds of residents to identify on maps the locations of abandoned mines, former coke oven sites, dry cleaners, and other brownfield sites. The information was compiled, and the partners worked with USGS experts to select the top-priority sites for environmental site assessment in each community. Assessments were completed on six brownfield sites along the stream.
Innovative Techniques
The Five Mile Creek Greenways Partnership used land conservation as a strategy to encourage stream cleanup while promoting community revitalization and economic growth. Because the financial resources of the cities were limited, the partnership joined stakeholders to create one voice. This partnership raised public awareness and began to garner favorable attention from the media, elected officials, grant makers, and federal, state, and local agencies. The partners have tapped a variety of economic and environmental programs to accomplish their goals, including land and water conservation funding; EPA brownfield grants, Five Star grants, and Smart Growth Initiative tools; interns donated from the federal Office of Surface Mining; Rails to Trails; transportation enhancement grants; and others. Private land donations and private foundation gifts also have been used to develop the greenway. Recognizing the importance of the stream to their mutual welfare, partners in the MOA agreed that all development conducted as part of the greenway would incorporate the highest design standards to protect water quality.
Challenges
The greatest obstacle to redevelopment was erasing the image of the Five Mile Creek as a contaminated stream and devising an approach to address contamination. As environmental controls became more effective, discharges into the stream were minimized, and aquatic populations began to recover. But the long history of contamination has left its mark. Many people had problems trying to save a stream that they equated with acid mine drainage and creosote contamination. Convincing them that this distressed stream could have a healthy and productive future as a recreational and food source was difficult.
Benefits
The recovering stream and the growing greenway network are attracting new visitors to the area to canoe, camp, hike, and cycle. Increasingly, residents are taking advantage of the new recreational amenities as well, which is stimulating other new activity in the region. Brookside is building a new city hall. In addition, a new business in town is providing services to visiting canoeing enthusiasts. Tarrant is in active discussions with business representatives looking to develop the Vulcan Rivet and Bolt property near the new Billy Hewitt Park, which was built by 200 volunteers in a single day as part of the greenway development. Fultondale and Graysville have new park and housing developments underway. Greenway events are generating new tax revenue, and property values have stabilized. Perhaps even more importantly, residents are now looking to stay. It will be years before the full economic impact of the greenway is realized, but all partners in the Five Mile Creek project agree that the greenway has brought new development, a new image, and new economic life to the area.
[MORE]
The Five Mile Creek Greenway project applied an innovative approach to brownfield redevelopment by converting multiple brownfield sites along the creek into usable greenspace, establishing a powerful framework for a 28-mile greenway system through Jefferson County, Alabama. The greenway protects water quality and restores the creek as an asset to the five cities through which it flows—Tarrant, Fultondale, Birmingham, Brookside, and Graysville. Restoration of the Five Mile Creek watershed by these cities required a combination of innovative thinking and partnerships as well as pooling their collective talents.
The cities along Five Mile Creek share a history of mining and foundry work. The industrialization of Five Mile Creek led to years of neglect and pollution of large segments of the watershed, earning it the nickname of “Creosote Creek.” The cities have struggled to survive economically, in large part due to the negative reputation of the creek. As a result, it was imperative to generate a new public image for the stream by improving recreational opportunities and taking steps to protect the aquatic life sustained by the watershed. A significant component of this effort involves assessing and remediating several properties on the banks of Five Mile Creek to mitigate the continued discharge of contaminants into the watershed. Successful management of the select sites will provide a roadmap for future cleanup activities benefiting multiple communities.
Participants
• Freshwater Land Trust
• Five Mile Creek Partnership
Primary Reason for Redevelopment
This area was selected for redevelopment by local leaders who were willing to work together to turn a polluted stream into an asset and amenity. When the redevelopment project was initiated, residents from all of the communities along Five Mile Creek participated in public meetings. They identified the major environmental concerns in each city and then selected priority sites that were of greatest local concern.
Approach
Working through the Jefferson County Commission, a meeting was arranged to bring the five cities together with other interested stakeholders to discuss improving Five Mile Creek’s health. The result was the historic signing of an official memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the cities, the Jefferson County Commission, the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission, the Freshwater Land Trust, and the Cawaco Resource Conservation and Development Council, a local non-profit working on water quality issues. The MOA stated that the partners would work together to clean up the creek by creating a series of parks and greenways along its 28-mile corridor.
The MOA proved to be a catalyst for momentum. Local leaders worked with their Congressional delegation to secure $1.2 million in transportation funding for the first leg of the greenway. Federal partners, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), matched private funds raised by the Freshwater Land Trust for water quality and flood studies. The Alabama Power Service Organization (an employee association) adopted the Five Mile Creek Greenway as a volunteer project and began conducting regularly scheduled workdays along the creek. In addition, private landowners began giving land or offering it for sale to the partnership for the park and greenway system.
Through the Freshwater Land Trust, the Five Mile Creek partners applied for and received a $200,000 assessment grant from EPA’s brownfield program. The land trust organized a series of public meetings in each community along the creek, which allowed hundreds of residents to identify on maps the locations of abandoned mines, former coke oven sites, dry cleaners, and other brownfield sites. The information was compiled, and the partners worked with USGS experts to select the top-priority sites for environmental site assessment in each community. Assessments were completed on six brownfield sites along the stream.
Innovative Techniques
The Five Mile Creek Greenways Partnership used land conservation as a strategy to encourage stream cleanup while promoting community revitalization and economic growth. Because the financial resources of the cities were limited, the partnership joined stakeholders to create one voice. This partnership raised public awareness and began to garner favorable attention from the media, elected officials, grant makers, and federal, state, and local agencies. The partners have tapped a variety of economic and environmental programs to accomplish their goals, including land and water conservation funding; EPA brownfield grants, Five Star grants, and Smart Growth Initiative tools; interns donated from the federal Office of Surface Mining; Rails to Trails; transportation enhancement grants; and others. Private land donations and private foundation gifts also have been used to develop the greenway. Recognizing the importance of the stream to their mutual welfare, partners in the MOA agreed that all development conducted as part of the greenway would incorporate the highest design standards to protect water quality.
Challenges
The greatest obstacle to redevelopment was erasing the image of the Five Mile Creek as a contaminated stream and devising an approach to address contamination. As environmental controls became more effective, discharges into the stream were minimized, and aquatic populations began to recover. But the long history of contamination has left its mark. Many people had problems trying to save a stream that they equated with acid mine drainage and creosote contamination. Convincing them that this distressed stream could have a healthy and productive future as a recreational and food source was difficult.
Benefits
The recovering stream and the growing greenway network are attracting new visitors to the area to canoe, camp, hike, and cycle. Increasingly, residents are taking advantage of the new recreational amenities as well, which is stimulating other new activity in the region. Brookside is building a new city hall. In addition, a new business in town is providing services to visiting canoeing enthusiasts. Tarrant is in active discussions with business representatives looking to develop the Vulcan Rivet and Bolt property near the new Billy Hewitt Park, which was built by 200 volunteers in a single day as part of the greenway development. Fultondale and Graysville have new park and housing developments underway. Greenway events are generating new tax revenue, and property values have stabilized. Perhaps even more importantly, residents are now looking to stay. It will be years before the full economic impact of the greenway is realized, but all partners in the Five Mile Creek project agree that the greenway has brought new development, a new image, and new economic life to the area.
[MORE]
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Professional Judgment in VEC-REC Determinations
Vapor Intrusion is here to stay. Check out Anthony Buonicore's Vapor Intrusion Blog at http://commonground.edrnet.com/posts/ab28c9bbd1
Here's a sampling of his latest:
Professional Judgment in VEC-REC Determinations (9 Comments)
Monday, December 20, 2010 9:59 AM
Entry by abuonicore
As an instructor for the ASTM E 2600-10 VEC training course, I noticed some confusion over where professional judgment is applied. Should professional judgment be applied when conducting a Tier 1 screen in E 2600-10 so that there are the least number of properties contributing to a vapor encroachment condition and requiring further investigation? Or should professional judgment not be applied in E 2600-10 when deciding whether or not a contaminated property is creating a VEC, but rather be applied in the E 1527-05 Phase I when determining whether this VEC is a REC? My response is that professional judgment can be applied in either place. For example, assume the soil between the target property and a chlorinated solvent-contaminated property located 90 feet down-gradient from a target property is a relatively impermeable silty clay. Under the E 2600-10 Tier 1 screen, this contaminated property would represent a condition that could cause a VEC since the contaminated property is within 100 feet of the target property, and vapors, according to the critical distance definition in E 2600-10, could potentially reach the target property assuming the path of least resistance is in that direction. One approach is to identify the contaminated property in the example as creating a VEC under E 2600-10 since it is within 100 feet of the target property and then, when evaluating if this VEC is also creating a REC in the E 1527-05 Phase I, use the soil characteristics rationale to support your professional opinion that the VEC would not represent a REC. On the other hand, professional judgment can be applied just as well in the E 2600-10 Tier 1 screen to conclude that the down-gradient contaminated property in this example does not represent a VEC because of soil characteristics. In this latter case, the property then need not even be addressed as a potential REC in the Phase I.
The choice as to where professional judgment is better applied remains an open issue, or at least an issue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. With respect to my example, an advantage to applying it in the E 2600-10 Tier 1 screen is that it can eliminate a nearby contaminated property that potentially may create a VEC from any further consideration in the Phase I. An advantage to applying it in the Phase I (as part of the REC determination) is that it can simplify E 2600-10 Tier 1 screening.
It would be interesting to hear your rationales for where you would prefer to apply professional judgment with respect to VEC determination in Tier 1 screening under E 2600-10. Would your preference be to eliminate the contaminated property potentially creating a VEC in E 2600-10 Tier 1 screening, or would you prefer to keep it as a VEC and then use professional judgment to eliminate it from further consideration in the REC evaluation in E 1527-05?
Here's a sampling of his latest:
Professional Judgment in VEC-REC Determinations (9 Comments)
Monday, December 20, 2010 9:59 AM
Entry by abuonicore
As an instructor for the ASTM E 2600-10 VEC training course, I noticed some confusion over where professional judgment is applied. Should professional judgment be applied when conducting a Tier 1 screen in E 2600-10 so that there are the least number of properties contributing to a vapor encroachment condition and requiring further investigation? Or should professional judgment not be applied in E 2600-10 when deciding whether or not a contaminated property is creating a VEC, but rather be applied in the E 1527-05 Phase I when determining whether this VEC is a REC? My response is that professional judgment can be applied in either place. For example, assume the soil between the target property and a chlorinated solvent-contaminated property located 90 feet down-gradient from a target property is a relatively impermeable silty clay. Under the E 2600-10 Tier 1 screen, this contaminated property would represent a condition that could cause a VEC since the contaminated property is within 100 feet of the target property, and vapors, according to the critical distance definition in E 2600-10, could potentially reach the target property assuming the path of least resistance is in that direction. One approach is to identify the contaminated property in the example as creating a VEC under E 2600-10 since it is within 100 feet of the target property and then, when evaluating if this VEC is also creating a REC in the E 1527-05 Phase I, use the soil characteristics rationale to support your professional opinion that the VEC would not represent a REC. On the other hand, professional judgment can be applied just as well in the E 2600-10 Tier 1 screen to conclude that the down-gradient contaminated property in this example does not represent a VEC because of soil characteristics. In this latter case, the property then need not even be addressed as a potential REC in the Phase I.
The choice as to where professional judgment is better applied remains an open issue, or at least an issue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. With respect to my example, an advantage to applying it in the E 2600-10 Tier 1 screen is that it can eliminate a nearby contaminated property that potentially may create a VEC from any further consideration in the Phase I. An advantage to applying it in the Phase I (as part of the REC determination) is that it can simplify E 2600-10 Tier 1 screening.
It would be interesting to hear your rationales for where you would prefer to apply professional judgment with respect to VEC determination in Tier 1 screening under E 2600-10. Would your preference be to eliminate the contaminated property potentially creating a VEC in E 2600-10 Tier 1 screening, or would you prefer to keep it as a VEC and then use professional judgment to eliminate it from further consideration in the REC evaluation in E 1527-05?
Friday, December 24, 2010
FLASHBACK TO 2001 (Clearwater Florida Brownfield PILOT Story)
As we approach 2011, I thought it would be interesting to share some information pulled together by EPA back in 2001 on the Clearwater Brownfield Pilot. Here's what they put together:
The City of Clearwater, Florida, is beginning a growth
spurt that promises to create hundreds of jobs, increase the
city's tax base, and enhance its neglected neighborhoods while
cleaning up its brownfields and improving the environment.
In September 1996, EPA awarded the city a $100,000
Brownfields Assessment Pilot grant, and an additional
$100,000 in September 1998. From this, the city has lever-
aged more than $9 million in additional federal, state, and lo-
cal funding. Now, the high-tech revolution has come to
Clearwater; an international software company that located
its new headquarters on a former brownfield has brought more
than 500 new jobs to Clearwater so far, with 500 more to come.
This $50 million development is the biggest project happen-
ing in Clearwater right now, but it's not the only one that will
benefit local residents. Among Clearwater's many brownfields
restoration projects is a new health clinic being built to serve
the residents of North Greenwood, the largest minority com-
munity in the city.
The Clearwater Brownfields Assessment Pilot area contains
approximately 220 potentially contaminated commercial, in-
dustrial, and residential sites located on more than 1,800 acres, part
of which includes former wetlands that were filled in more than 40
years ago for urban development. Encompassing a State Enter-
prise Zone, the Pilot area is also the first state-certified brownfields
area in Florida.
One of Clearwater's most successful brownfields restoration ef-
forts involves the 14-acre site of a former auto service center that
is now home to Information Management Resources' (IMR) Global
Center headquarters. The brownfields property was once occupied
by a department store's automotive service center. The department
store removed underground oil, diesel, and gasoline storage tanks sev-
eral years ago, but unknown levels of contamination remained. The Pilot
funded environmental assessments, a storm water retention area, and right-of-
way improvements required for the project, and the city spent $500,000 for cleanup, which
consisted of excavation and removal of petroleum-contaminated soil. IMR paid $1.5
million for the property, and the city offered substantial economic incentives. It is a good
investment for both parties.
The Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development approved IMR for
the state's Qualified Target Industry (QTI) program to receive approximately $2 million
in tax refunds for creating more than 550 new jobs. Florida's Brownfields Bonus program
will add an additional $1.4 million to that refund. This project has resulted in more than
$51 million in capital investment and is the largest business deal in the city's history.
Redevelopment plans call for the construction of six buildings with a total of 310,000
square feet of office space. The first building was completed in July 1999 and opened
with 175 employees. A second building opened in early 2000, and there are now more
than 500 employees working on-site. When all six buildings are finished and in opera-
tion, 1,000 people will be employed with an average salary of $40,000. This average
salary is expected to substantially increase the average salary in Pinellas County, and
IMR's presence will attract other big businesses to the area. More than 1,500 additional
new jobs in the county are projected to be generated.
On a smaller scale, the residents of North Greenwood, one of Clearwater's poorest neigh-
borhoods, will also enjoy the benefits of brownfields redevelopment. On March 18, 2000,
ground was broken for the Greenwood Community Health Resource Center. As part of
the city's environmental justice plan, representatives of North Greenwood participated in
redevelopment planning and voted unanimously for the city to lease the property to the
nonprofit clinic. The Health Resource Center, which is staffed by professionals who
volunteer their time, was founded by Willa Carson, a 72-year-old retired nurse who had
previously been operating the clinic out of two refurbished apartments. The new home
for the clinic is being constructed on the site of a former gas station using a $300,000 state
appropriation. The Pilot conducted environmental assessments at the property, and a
$200,000 state allocation funded removal of underground storage tanks and soil cleanup.
Once construction is complete, North Greenwood will have a new health facility offering
immunizations, physicals, tests and screenings, flu shots, and counseling to residents of the neigh-
borhood.
Many other brownfields in Clearwater are being returned to use. For example, the Pilot has com-
pleted environmental assessments on a site to be developed by a small, woman-owned company
that will hire at least 50 percent of its new employees from the surrounding community. Land and
groundwater assessments have also been completed on the site of a former auto dealership that
will be redeveloped into a 100-unit townhouse community overlooking the town pond.
EPA has continued its commitment to Clearwater's brownfields restoration efforts by awarding the
city a $100,000 supplemental assistance grant that includes $50,000 for greenspace restoration of
Stevenson Creek, which runs through the heart of North Greenwood. EPA has also awarded the
city a $500,000 Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) grant, which will be used to
clean up sites targeted under the Brownfields Assessment Pilot. The Pilot anticipates making its
first BCRLF loan by Fall 2001 for the cleanup of a pesticide-contaminated property to be redevel-
oped into computer-based businesses. In addition, EPA is assisting with a $141,000 Job Training
and Development Demonstration Pilot that will train unemployed and underemployed residents in
the North and South Greenwood neighborhoods for environmental jobs, including the assessment
and cleanup of Clearwater's brownfields. For more information about the Clearwater Brownfields
Pilot, contact Miles Ballogg, Brownfields Coordinator, Clearwater Economic Development Team,
at (727) 562–4023.
P.S. - Time flies when your having fun.... Just ask Miles. He's now with Cardno TBE, a brownfield consulting firm in Clearwater.
The City of Clearwater, Florida, is beginning a growth
spurt that promises to create hundreds of jobs, increase the
city's tax base, and enhance its neglected neighborhoods while
cleaning up its brownfields and improving the environment.
In September 1996, EPA awarded the city a $100,000
Brownfields Assessment Pilot grant, and an additional
$100,000 in September 1998. From this, the city has lever-
aged more than $9 million in additional federal, state, and lo-
cal funding. Now, the high-tech revolution has come to
Clearwater; an international software company that located
its new headquarters on a former brownfield has brought more
than 500 new jobs to Clearwater so far, with 500 more to come.
This $50 million development is the biggest project happen-
ing in Clearwater right now, but it's not the only one that will
benefit local residents. Among Clearwater's many brownfields
restoration projects is a new health clinic being built to serve
the residents of North Greenwood, the largest minority com-
munity in the city.
The Clearwater Brownfields Assessment Pilot area contains
approximately 220 potentially contaminated commercial, in-
dustrial, and residential sites located on more than 1,800 acres, part
of which includes former wetlands that were filled in more than 40
years ago for urban development. Encompassing a State Enter-
prise Zone, the Pilot area is also the first state-certified brownfields
area in Florida.
One of Clearwater's most successful brownfields restoration ef-
forts involves the 14-acre site of a former auto service center that
is now home to Information Management Resources' (IMR) Global
Center headquarters. The brownfields property was once occupied
by a department store's automotive service center. The department
store removed underground oil, diesel, and gasoline storage tanks sev-
eral years ago, but unknown levels of contamination remained. The Pilot
funded environmental assessments, a storm water retention area, and right-of-
way improvements required for the project, and the city spent $500,000 for cleanup, which
consisted of excavation and removal of petroleum-contaminated soil. IMR paid $1.5
million for the property, and the city offered substantial economic incentives. It is a good
investment for both parties.
The Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development approved IMR for
the state's Qualified Target Industry (QTI) program to receive approximately $2 million
in tax refunds for creating more than 550 new jobs. Florida's Brownfields Bonus program
will add an additional $1.4 million to that refund. This project has resulted in more than
$51 million in capital investment and is the largest business deal in the city's history.
Redevelopment plans call for the construction of six buildings with a total of 310,000
square feet of office space. The first building was completed in July 1999 and opened
with 175 employees. A second building opened in early 2000, and there are now more
than 500 employees working on-site. When all six buildings are finished and in opera-
tion, 1,000 people will be employed with an average salary of $40,000. This average
salary is expected to substantially increase the average salary in Pinellas County, and
IMR's presence will attract other big businesses to the area. More than 1,500 additional
new jobs in the county are projected to be generated.
On a smaller scale, the residents of North Greenwood, one of Clearwater's poorest neigh-
borhoods, will also enjoy the benefits of brownfields redevelopment. On March 18, 2000,
ground was broken for the Greenwood Community Health Resource Center. As part of
the city's environmental justice plan, representatives of North Greenwood participated in
redevelopment planning and voted unanimously for the city to lease the property to the
nonprofit clinic. The Health Resource Center, which is staffed by professionals who
volunteer their time, was founded by Willa Carson, a 72-year-old retired nurse who had
previously been operating the clinic out of two refurbished apartments. The new home
for the clinic is being constructed on the site of a former gas station using a $300,000 state
appropriation. The Pilot conducted environmental assessments at the property, and a
$200,000 state allocation funded removal of underground storage tanks and soil cleanup.
Once construction is complete, North Greenwood will have a new health facility offering
immunizations, physicals, tests and screenings, flu shots, and counseling to residents of the neigh-
borhood.
Many other brownfields in Clearwater are being returned to use. For example, the Pilot has com-
pleted environmental assessments on a site to be developed by a small, woman-owned company
that will hire at least 50 percent of its new employees from the surrounding community. Land and
groundwater assessments have also been completed on the site of a former auto dealership that
will be redeveloped into a 100-unit townhouse community overlooking the town pond.
EPA has continued its commitment to Clearwater's brownfields restoration efforts by awarding the
city a $100,000 supplemental assistance grant that includes $50,000 for greenspace restoration of
Stevenson Creek, which runs through the heart of North Greenwood. EPA has also awarded the
city a $500,000 Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) grant, which will be used to
clean up sites targeted under the Brownfields Assessment Pilot. The Pilot anticipates making its
first BCRLF loan by Fall 2001 for the cleanup of a pesticide-contaminated property to be redevel-
oped into computer-based businesses. In addition, EPA is assisting with a $141,000 Job Training
and Development Demonstration Pilot that will train unemployed and underemployed residents in
the North and South Greenwood neighborhoods for environmental jobs, including the assessment
and cleanup of Clearwater's brownfields. For more information about the Clearwater Brownfields
Pilot, contact Miles Ballogg, Brownfields Coordinator, Clearwater Economic Development Team,
at (727) 562–4023.
P.S. - Time flies when your having fun.... Just ask Miles. He's now with Cardno TBE, a brownfield consulting firm in Clearwater.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
EDR Vapor Intrusion Application for Brownfields
The Vapor Intrusion VEC App at a Glance
EDR’s VEC App is the powerful, easy-to-use application that can help you mitigate vapor intrusion risk by identifying potential sources of vapor intrusion or vapor encroachment on a given property. EDR’s VEC App demonstrates your compliance with E2600-10 and will shave hours off your environmental due diligence assessments by simplifying and streamlining the data review process.[MORE]
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
NC - Court Says Property Buyer May Sue for Fraud If Disclosure of Contaminants Incomplete
A property buyer may pursue a fraud claim against the seller for allegedly failing to disclose all of the hazardous substances present on the property, a federal district court held Dec. 6 (Metropolitan Group Inc. v. Meridian Industries, W.D.N.C., No. 3:09-CV-440, 12/6/10).
Here's a piece of the ruling:
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Accepting as true the allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, prior to and in the Agreement, Defendant disclosed the existence of a hazardous substance in the groundwater, and represented that there were no other hazardous substances on the Property. (Am. Compl., 7.) According to Defendant, these facts support a conclusion that it “acted dutifully and in good faith by informing Plaintiff about what it knew at the time of the sale.” (Def.’s Reply Memo. in Further Supp., 8.) But Plaintiff has further alleged that Defendant had knowledge of the other hazardous substances at the time of the Agreement and intentionally made false representations which were “reasonably calculated to deceive.” (Am. Compl., 7-8.) Contrary to Defendant’s argument, these allegations are sufficient – a complaint does not need to prove an intent to deceive to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Food Lion, 382 F. Supp. 2d at 801; Becker v. Graber Builders, Inc., 561 S.E.2d 905, 910 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (concluding that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was improper because the plaintiff had met her burden by alleging facts which, if proven, would demonstrate an intent to deceive). The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff’s claim of an intent to deceive “raise[s] a right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes you wonder whether the Phase I "interviews" should have a copy of this ruling attached to it. Is it "Buyer beware".... or Seller beware?
Here's a piece of the ruling:
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Accepting as true the allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, prior to and in the Agreement, Defendant disclosed the existence of a hazardous substance in the groundwater, and represented that there were no other hazardous substances on the Property. (Am. Compl., 7.) According to Defendant, these facts support a conclusion that it “acted dutifully and in good faith by informing Plaintiff about what it knew at the time of the sale.” (Def.’s Reply Memo. in Further Supp., 8.) But Plaintiff has further alleged that Defendant had knowledge of the other hazardous substances at the time of the Agreement and intentionally made false representations which were “reasonably calculated to deceive.” (Am. Compl., 7-8.) Contrary to Defendant’s argument, these allegations are sufficient – a complaint does not need to prove an intent to deceive to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Food Lion, 382 F. Supp. 2d at 801; Becker v. Graber Builders, Inc., 561 S.E.2d 905, 910 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (concluding that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was improper because the plaintiff had met her burden by alleging facts which, if proven, would demonstrate an intent to deceive). The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff’s claim of an intent to deceive “raise[s] a right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes you wonder whether the Phase I "interviews" should have a copy of this ruling attached to it. Is it "Buyer beware".... or Seller beware?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Census Tool - American Community Survey.
A survey released 12/14/2010 by the U.S. Census Bureau paints a picture of each state, describing in detail its social, economic, housing and demographic features - down to county, city and even neighborhood levels.
The Bureau's five-year American Community Survey will affect where new hospitals, schools and emergency services will be placed and where many jobs will go. It could be useful for brownfield redevelopment grant proposals. For the first time, the American Community Survey is providing five-year estimates of the population's traits; the one released Tuesday covers 2005-2009; one year from now, the estimates will be for 2006-2010, and so on.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2009_release/
The Bureau's five-year American Community Survey will affect where new hospitals, schools and emergency services will be placed and where many jobs will go. It could be useful for brownfield redevelopment grant proposals. For the first time, the American Community Survey is providing five-year estimates of the population's traits; the one released Tuesday covers 2005-2009; one year from now, the estimates will be for 2006-2010, and so on.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2009_release/
KY - Environmental Compliance Webinar: Gasoline Distribution Facilities
| Title: Environmental Compliance Webinar: Gasoline Distribution Facilities Date: Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011 Time: 2:00 p.m.–4:30 p.m. EST Gasoline stations are challenged with increasing environmental requirements, ranging from the proper management of underground storage tanks to the new nationwide area source requirements for gasoline distribution. This webinar will be a general overview of potentially applicable federal and state requirements and is designed for owners and operators that are new to environmental management or for those looking for a refresher. | |||
|
Monday, December 20, 2010
Corporate Real Estate and Environment Responsibility. Image, Reality and Transparency
[from Hersch at Vita Nuevo]
Regulators are strongly pushing corporations to report their environmental performance and liabilities. Sarbanes-Oxley disclosure requirements included revealing potential environmental liabilities from contaminated properties as well as other environmental risks. While some consultants foresaw, and probably wished for, a dramatic change in corporate policy, the results have been more gradual. In particular corporations have not rushed to dispose of contaminated site, but rather focused on identifying the problems, containing the risk, and selling properties into strong markets when secure that the environmental risk is limited.
Recent FASB regulatory proposals for greater potential disclosure of loss contingencies may further impact corporate real estate practice, and litigation. In a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal responding to an editorial FASB's Lawyer Bonanza" FASB's Chairman Bob Herz defends FASB's proposed disclosures for loss contingencies, saying "new disclosures are aimed at providing information earlier to existing and potential investors in order to give them a greater understanding of the risks companies are facing," and pointing out that, "the proposal allows companies to aggregate claim amounts, so that the plaintiffs attorneys would not be able to identify specific cases." GE has been an illuminating example. During the Welch era, GE developed a well-deserved reputation as recalcitrant. One former EPA official said, "Show most companies the edge of the cliff, and they will comply. With GE, you had to push them over the cliff and when they are a foot from hitting with a thud, they'll start to reluctantly negotiate". One specific Welch dictum was that GE would not sell contaminated property, even to redevelopers who specialized in remediation - a strategy aimed at minimizing environmental litigation. Well. GE is now the home of "ecoimagination", realizing that many of its products, from light bulbs to turbines for windmills, sell in the green market. GE is, perhaps still reluctantly, proceeding with a half billion dollar PCB cleanup of the Hudson River. GE Capital has a humongous real estate portfolio of primarily apartment buildings, both mortgages and ownership, and is working to improve energy efficiency, led by a sustainability director - one of several former EPA experts and attorneys now working for GE.
[MORE at http://www.vitanuova.net]
Regulators are strongly pushing corporations to report their environmental performance and liabilities. Sarbanes-Oxley disclosure requirements included revealing potential environmental liabilities from contaminated properties as well as other environmental risks. While some consultants foresaw, and probably wished for, a dramatic change in corporate policy, the results have been more gradual. In particular corporations have not rushed to dispose of contaminated site, but rather focused on identifying the problems, containing the risk, and selling properties into strong markets when secure that the environmental risk is limited.
Recent FASB regulatory proposals for greater potential disclosure of loss contingencies may further impact corporate real estate practice, and litigation. In a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal responding to an editorial FASB's Lawyer Bonanza" FASB's Chairman Bob Herz defends FASB's proposed disclosures for loss contingencies, saying "new disclosures are aimed at providing information earlier to existing and potential investors in order to give them a greater understanding of the risks companies are facing," and pointing out that, "the proposal allows companies to aggregate claim amounts, so that the plaintiffs attorneys would not be able to identify specific cases." GE has been an illuminating example. During the Welch era, GE developed a well-deserved reputation as recalcitrant. One former EPA official said, "Show most companies the edge of the cliff, and they will comply. With GE, you had to push them over the cliff and when they are a foot from hitting with a thud, they'll start to reluctantly negotiate". One specific Welch dictum was that GE would not sell contaminated property, even to redevelopers who specialized in remediation - a strategy aimed at minimizing environmental litigation. Well. GE is now the home of "ecoimagination", realizing that many of its products, from light bulbs to turbines for windmills, sell in the green market. GE is, perhaps still reluctantly, proceeding with a half billion dollar PCB cleanup of the Hudson River. GE Capital has a humongous real estate portfolio of primarily apartment buildings, both mortgages and ownership, and is working to improve energy efficiency, led by a sustainability director - one of several former EPA experts and attorneys now working for GE.
[MORE at http://www.vitanuova.net]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)