Urban development in 2000:
Does a river run through it?

Growth pressures put brownfields on the map

By SUSAN KEMP
Landau Associates

The pressures of regulation and urban growth are bringing brownfields development -- the redevelopment of formerly industrialized land -- and natural resource mitigation into play more often in the Pacific Northwest.

Excavating and hauling away contaminated soil may be costly but leaving it onsite and capping it may compromise future expansion or even routine maintenance.

Many companies that might never have considered developing a property with critical issues are now pursuing these properties, considering them opportunities rather than liabilities. Successfully completed projects now are providing developers with examples that help reduce uncertainties and identify paths for their planned projects.

It may seem apparent that projects must be planned carefully in order to succeed. But the beginning stages of a project are often where the most costly mistakes are made. Surprisingly, problems such as finding unexpected contamination at a construction site are now less common than not having identified potential natural resource or permitting obstacles. The permitting process is often what controls the schedule and significantly influences the cost of a project.

To correctly address natural resource and brownfields permitting issues, it is important to get information from the appropriate regulatory agencies early in the process. These agencies are likely to be the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Washington State Department of Ecology. A property owner or purchaser may also benefit from hiring a qualified environmental consultant or attorney, or by contacting others that have completed similar projects to get a clear idea of the costs and issues.

What are some of the specific issues that have come up for recent urban area development projects, and how did property owners address them?

Recently, a major Washington retailer needed a large site close enough to the city’s central business district to ensure an adequate customer base. The best available property that fit the siting criteria had contamination in some areas as well as sawdust and wood debris accumulation, which complicated future building foundation support. In addition, a stream ran through the middle of the area where the retailer wanted to build.

At first glance, these issues might seem like deal-killers. The drawbacks included costs to dig up, haul away and dispose of the unsuitable or contaminated soil, as well as the cost of rerouting the stream. With the impact of the protection of certain fish species under the Endangered Species Act, permitting approval could have been a challenge. However, at the time of the retailer’s evaluation, the stream was marginal habitat, consisting of nothing more than a straight, dug-out channel, without trees or other habitat features.

The retailer calculated the cost of the work for these improvements, balanced this cost against the potential benefits for themselves and the community, and went to work. They excavated poor foundation materials and refilled the site with clean, imported soil. They made a new, meandering streambed with vegetation, creating habitat several times larger than the previous area, which improved the stream’s value significantly. They now have a site that is both environmentally friendly and suited for development. The project is currently under construction.

Looking beyond the immediate horizon can be equally important to a project’s success. Often the question arises whether to leave existing contamination or haul it away. It is necessary to weigh cost and technical options carefully. The cost to excavate and haul away large quantities of contaminated material to the nearest legal landfill (which may not be so near) may be substantial.

But leaving contamination onsite and capping it to keep it from spreading may mean incurring additional costs when developing the property further or conducting routine maintenance. In any case where the soil will be disturbed during cleanup or future maintenance (such as repairing, adding or rerouting utility lines), the developer must coordinate the efforts with regulators, write health and safety plans and protocols, provide health and safety training to contractors that work on the site, fulfill testing requirements, and properly handle any contaminated soil that is generated. For some projects, it may not be feasible to remove all contaminated soil. For example, at the Western Processing Superfund site in Kent, although the great majority of contamination has been removed, some soil with a low level of contamination remains in place and has been contained by a low-permeability cap, barrier walls and other specially engineered systems. Adjacent properties are being developed consistent with the commercial and light industrial character of the surrounding area.

Growth, geography and public safety concerns led the city of Kent to conclude several years ago that a bridge needed to be constructed over two sets of railroad tracks that divide the city’s light industrial area into eastern and western halves. Emergency vehicles were too often being blocked or impeded by rail traffic and related vehicular traffic backups.

The city concluded that the best route for this major transportation corridor crossed the north end of the Western Processing site at South 196th Street. In a remarkable example of public/private cooperation, the design and construction of the bridge was coordinated with and integrated into the design and construction of a low permeability cap for the Western Processing Superfund site.

Placing or rerouting utilities is often a large part of a project. Utilities affected by the South 196th Street project included a major bundle of fiber optic cables, an 18-foot diameter culvert, electrical transmission lines, as well as gas and sewer. The Olympic pipeline also crossed the site. Because planning for the South 196th Street project coincided with the design of the Western Processing cap, the cap could be designed to support the utilities and the bridge. Special materials were also used in the soil to keep the utility conduits from spreading contamination. Extra conduits were added for future power and communication needs.

Other issues to consider include the extent to which contaminated properties are to be cleaned up. If a property is cleaned up to industrial standards rather than residential standards, as is allowable under certain conditions by state regulations, future use of the property may be limited. But if cleanup to industrial standards is the most appropriate action for a site, then restrictions can be placed on deeds to ensure compliance.

Other issues include whether to limit the purchaser’s potential liability for purchasing and developing a contaminated property through negotiation of a prospective purchaser agreement with the state Department of Ecology. What if a property is encumbered by wetlands or stormwater management issues? King County has recently issued new stormwater regulations, and the state Department of Ecology also expects to issue requirements to be implemented statewide by the end of this year.

Even nearby contaminated properties may pose constraints to property development. Such property could be releasing contaminants that impact the property to be developed. With development in urban areas, utilities may need to be routed through or around other contaminated properties.

Who pays for any extra cost associated with this?

In developing an urban property, many natural resource and brownfields issues can be compensated for or mitigated in a manner that transforms a problematic site into a real asset, at a cost that is not only affordable, but a bargain in the long run. To evaluate the true worth of a project, it is important to plan for the future as well as the present.