TeamC_FinalReport

i | P a g e
Authors: Anna Dinh, Wafa Elamin, Molly Lusden, Nathan Ong, Tabitha Proffitt, Alexandra Sellers
Environmental Problem Solving Studio | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Client: Lindsay Laird | Instructor: Dr. John Browder
December 11, 2015

i | P a g e
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our professor, Dr. John O Browder and our client, Lindsay Laird for
their continued support, critiques, guidance, assistance, and expertise, which greatly helped the
progression and completion of this research report.
We would also like to thank the following people for taking time to answer our questions, share
their experiences of their redevelopment involvement, and to enlighten us with their professional
knowledge.
Kakumyo Lowe-Charde | Project Manager on Siskiyou Square | Portland, OR
Patrick Willoughby | Sustainability Director at Wellesley College | Wellesley, MA
Katie Nunez | Northampton County Administrator | Cape Charles, VA
Rita R. Kottke | Remediation Programs Manager, Land Protection Division Oklahoma DEQ |
Adrienne Russ | Executive Assistant/Brownfields Program Manager | Tulsa Industrial Authority
Jon Nunn | Executive Director, Grand Action | Grand Rapids, MI

i | P a g e
Executive Summary
Derelict infrastructure in post-industrial cities, including abandoned buildings and toxic
brownfields, are held vacant and unused, creating environmental, social, and economic concerns.
This discursive research report focuses on how to successfully redevelop brownfields—a specific
type of derelict infrastructure —in the United States. By clearly defining key terms pertinent to
brownfield redevelopment; outlining the research methods taken to compile required
information; utilizing an analysis of regulatory procedures for brownfield redevelopment case
studies throughout the United States, the team offers an extensive compilation of findings to
determine “What Makes for Successful Brownfield Redevelopment.” The selected brownfield
redevelopment case study sites are Siskiyou Square in Portland, OR; Alumnae Valley in
Wellesley, MA; Sustainable Technology Park in Cape Charles, VA; and the Downtown Market
Grand Rapids in Grand Rapids, MI; Guthrie Green, in Tulsa, OK. These sites offer a wide view
of how redevelopment is initiated and carried out, what specifics are taken into consideration,
and how or if the final outcomes are successful.
The lessons learned are compiled into recommendations on "What Makes for Successful
Brownfield Redevelopment.” This conclusive summary is developed through an analysis of the
remediation efforts to clean up contamination and toxic components that impact and pose threats
to the environmental and ecological, economic, regulatory and ethics, and social and community
component conditions. The main conclusion which was drawn from case study research was that
each brownfield site went beyond remediation and the removal of contaminants through the
incorporation of a wide array of sustainable designs and development initiatives. These
developments need to be guided by ethical considerations to humans and nonhumans. In doing
so, developers are able to ensure community support and involvement, proper allocation and
distribution and funds, and regulation compliance during every step of redevelopment. The
selected case studies can serve as models for future developers and it is pertinent that
information regarding funding breakdown, policy compliance, challenges and outcomes be more
accessible to potential developers.

i | P a g e
Table of Contents
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................2
Problem Statement.........................................................................................................................................................2
Project Significance........................................................................................................................................................2
Methods................................................................................................................................................................................3
Choosing Case Studies...................................................................................................................................................4
Research...........................................................................................................................................................................4
Four Components .....................................................................................................................................................4
Outreach......................................................................................................................................................................5
Interviews....................................................................................................................................................................5
Analyze Research.......................................................................................................................................................5
Develop Final Report....................................................................................................................................................6
Case Studies .........................................................................................................................................................................6
Overview of Case Studies .............................................................................................................................................6
Siskiyou Square (Dharma Rain Zen Center)..............................................................................................................8
Environmental and Ecological ................................................................................................................................8
Economic and Funding ............................................................................................................................................9
Social and Historical................................................................................................................................................10
Regulation and Ethics.............................................................................................................................................11
Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................................................................12
Alumnae Valley.............................................................................................................................................................15
Environmental and Ecological ..............................................................................................................................15
Economic and Funding ..........................................................................................................................................17
Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................................................................19
Downtown Market Grand Rapids.............................................................................................................................20
Sustainable Technology Industrial Park....................................................................................................................22
Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................................................................26
Guthrie Green...............................................................................................................................................................29

1 | P a g e
Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................................................................34
Overall Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................................................35
What Makes for Successful Brownfield Redevelopment.......................................................................................35
Appendix............................................................................................................................................................................38
Appendix A: Interview Materials...............................................................................................................................38
Appendix B: Regulatory Information .......................................................................................................................40
Appendix C: Sustainable Technology Park Memorandum ...................................................................................41
FUNDING OVERVIEW..........................................................................................................................................42
References..........................................................................................................................................................................48

2 | P a g e
Introduction
Problem Statement
Derelict infrastructure1
in post-industrial cities, including abandoned buildings and
brownfields2
, are held vacant and unused, creating environmental, social, and economic
concerns. These sites can pose potential safety threats to both the nonhuman and human
populations though ground and air pollution. Also, these vacant buildings devalue the selected
and surrounding properties creating economic issues in the community. Addressing these issues
through redevelopment has the potential to greatly reduce these problems and their potential
risks.
Project Significance
It is estimated that there are more than 450,000 post-industrial brownfields in the U.S.
that sit vacant awaiting potential redevelopment (Brownfield Overview and Definition, 2015).
When a vacant property remains untouched for long periods of time the surrounding areas face
threats regarding “environmental health, potential housing and community development, fiscal
and economic opportunities, and public safety within cities and communities” (Wilkinson, 2011).
In an effort to prevent these negative outcomes, derelict properties – more specifically,
brownfields – can be redeveloped into positive and ecologically sustainable greenspaces.
Redeveloping these privately or publicly owned brownfields into greenspace is the most efficient
management practice for enhancing environmental health with regards to urban development.
From a broader perspective, the communities negatively affected by these areas have the
potential to be transformed into an environmentally friendly atmosphere while simultaneously
allowing public health to flourish for the community as a whole.
1
Derelict - abandoned especially by the owner or occupant (Merriam-Webster, 2015)
Infrastructure - the basic equipment and structures (such as roads and bridges) that are needed for a country, region,
or organization to function properly (Merriam-Webster, 2015)
Therefore, the phrase “derelict infrastructure” refers to those fundamental facilities and systems that have been
deserted or abandoned. For the specific purpose of the team’s research - old industrial buildings and vacant
brownfield lots. These unsightly and unused areas have been neglected causing environmental concerns and
economic deficiency.
2
“Brownfield” is defined as “real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by
the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting
in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes development pressures off greenspaces and
working lands (Brownfield Overview and Definition, 2015).

3 | P a g e
The main focus of this report will be on a specific type of derelict infrastructure known as
brownfields. “Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties increases local tax bases, facilitates
job growth, utilizes existing infrastructure, takes development pressures off of undeveloped,
open land, and both improves and protects the environment.” (Brownfield Overview and
Definition, 2015). In order to redevelop a brownfield, sufficient funding is required in the form
of government grants and/or other community related charitable efforts including fundraisers,
individual donations, and company donations. Additionally, many agencies, such as the U.S.
EPA3
, require that policies and regulations are taken into consideration and adhered to during
redevelopment. These regulations can come from the smaller levels of government as well; for
example, a developer must take into account the local community and states specific regulations
such as zoning and environmental standards.
The four major components that are the focus of this research are economic and funding;
environmental and ecological; regulatory and ethical; and social and historical. Each of these
components play a major role in categorizing a successful redevelopment for a given brownfield
site. The incorporation of these components comprehensively insures that a vacant site with no
purpose becomes a location that positively influences the surrounding community and
environment by efficiently allocating resources that have already been dispensed rather than
using brand new supplies on untouched land.
Methods
The team adopted a comparative case study approach to this research. The outline below
demonstrates the methods the team used for this project.
3
The following abbreviations will be used to refer to government agencies, government policies, and individual
groups:
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency ASLA - American Society of Landscape Architects
MVV Associates - Micheal Van Valkenburgh Associates USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers
MassDEP - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection STIP - Sustainable Technology Industrial Park
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement DCR - Department of Conservation and Recreation
Commerce - Department of Commerce VDOT - Virginia Department of Transportation
OCC - Oklahoma Corporation Commission DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
ARRA - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

4 | P a g e
Choosing Case Studies
The first step of this project was to identify different sites that would represent varying
types of derelict infrastructure found across the nation. Individually, each team member came up
with a list of multiple sites that were previously classified as a brownfield and/or derelict
infrastructure4
. After evaluation of the comprehensive list, the team decided to specifically focus
the project on brownfield redevelopment. The team then substantially narrowed down the
choices into a preliminary list of five to ten sites labeled as brownfields by the EPA. These sites
were chosen based on the ecological concerns, economic impacts, and the involvement of
community. The list was once again evaluated and narrowed down to the following final sites:
· Siskiyou Square, Portland, Oregon
· Alumnae Valley, Wellesley, Massachusetts
· Downtown Market Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, Michigan
· Sustainable Technology Industrial Park (STIP), Cape Charles, Virginia
· Guthrie Green, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Research
Four Components
After the case studies were chosen and confirmed, the team selected four important categories to
focus and center the research for each case study around. These categories are
· Environmental and Ecological
· Economic and Funding
· Regulations and Ethics5
· Social and Historical
The team recognized that these categories are an integral part of brownfield redevelopment and
each one contributes to what makes a redevelopment successful. The goal of establishing these
categories was to allow the team to eventually correlate each case study to each category and
make a final conclusion on the best practices to employ when redeveloping a brownfield.
4
All brownfields are derelict infrastructure, but not all derelict infrastructure are brownfields. In order to be
classified as a “brownfield” the area must meet the specific qualifications set by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA, 2015).
5
See Appendix B for “Brownfield Redevelopment Policy and Process”

5 | P a g e
Outreach
After deciding on the main components, each team member was assigned one of the four
and was tasked to compile a list of questions based on their designated component. Then, as a
team, the questions were narrowed down and approved by the client. This questionnaire became
the official format for interviews and basis of the research plan.
The team also worked together to formulate an email template that would be used to
reach out to interviewees. This template incorporated any and all valuable information about the
team, the individual team member formulating the email, and the project itself. There was an
attachment created that would be sent to the interviewee with the email that explicitly described
the terms, conditions, and objective of the interview. 6
Interviews
Individual team members were assigned their own specific case study. Each team
member contacted the appropriate people to gain relevant information about the redevelopment
using the email template and questionnaire mentioned above. Most team members were present
for the interviews and took notes on the answers provided by the interviewee. After each
interview was complete, the team member that conducted the interview would read over each
team member's notes and create a final transcript that would be sent to the interviewee for
information accuracy confirmation and approval.
Analyze Research
Given the preliminary research, the team was able to analyze the information gained
through the interviews and correlate it with individual research from other trusted sources. The
team compared and contrasted each individual case study and drew conclusions regarding the
best management practices that should be taken to successfully redevelop a brownfield. The
conclusion of the report is titled “What Makes for Successful Brownfield Redevelopment”.
Based on the conclusions and lessons drawn from each case study and the team’s definition of
“successful,” the team provides recommendations for how to best approach a brownfield
redevelopment project.
6
See Appendix A for e-mail template and interview questionnaire.

6 | P a g e
Develop Final Report
The final step for this project was to compile a final report and presentation for the client based
on the research and analysis compiled throughout the course of the project.
Case Studies
Overview of Case Studies
When the team chose the final five sites that were used for the project, they wanted to
ensure that each site would have sufficient and substantial information in order to address the
four components. These four components are imperative aspects that developers should take into
consideration when redeveloping a brownfield. By thoroughly examining these components, the
redevelopment of a brownfield is more likely to be successfully sustainable. The following table
provides information about what each case study was and why the team thought it would be
valuable to the project.
Case Study Pre Development Post
Development
Why it was chosen
Siskiyou
Square
14 Acre Quarry and
Landfill
Dharma Rain Zen
Center
Showed a considerable amount of
ecological restoration and
demonstrates an ongoing
redevelopment
Alumnae
Valley
175 spot parking lot
(13.5 Acres)
Wetland Displayed a complete
transformation to be a fully
functioning ecological habitat and
wetland
Downtown
Market
Grand
Rapids
Vacant/Abandoned
Industrial Buildings
(3.5 Acres)
Urban Farmers
Market
Uses sustainable infrastructure,
natural energy resources, involved
community in process of
redevelopment, promotes further
education for health, farming, and
sustainable living
Sustainable
Technology
Industrial
Park
Municipal dump,
dockside, railyard,
and abandoned
industrial operations
(Maximum of 200
Acres)
Unfinished Tech.
Park & Nature
Reserve
Extensively considered
economic factors while
simultaneously promoting sufficient
environmental health
Guthrie
Green
Industrial Warehouse
Site (2.7 Acres)
Urban
Greenspace &
Community Park
It used sustainable design elements
and brought the community
together by providing an urban
greenspace in a city that is in the
process of revitalization

8 | P a g e
Siskiyou Square (Dharma Rain Zen Center)
Portland, Oregon
Siskiyou Square is located on a former quarry and more recently a 14-acre landfill in
Portland, Oregon. The new development will be the campus for the Dharma Rain Zen Center, a
Buddhist temple that will focus on practicing meditation and living a life that encourages the
involvement of nature. Siskiyou Square demonstrates an ongoing brownfield redevelopment
venture that is projected to not only help the Dharma Rain Zen Center, but the surrounding
community and ecosystem as well. The new addition is going to be a place where the community
can walk in nature, live with spirited people, and work in a community garden. A section of the
brownfield will be transformed into a Zen temple where people can gather to practice and learn
meditation and other Buddhist practices. The project also
incorporates dormitories, offices, classrooms, and a
community garden. At this point in time, Siskiyou Square
has received approximately 70% of its total funding needed
to complete the project. By the end of 2015, the project
should obtain the remaining 30% thanks to an anonymous
donor that has agreed to match any future contributions.
While funding collection continues, the development has
begun. According to project manager, Kakumyo Lowe-
Charde, all four components, ecological and environmental,
economic and funding, social and historical significance,
and regulations and ethics, were greatly considered and
welcomed during the planning stages for Siskiyou Square.
Environmental and Ecological
Being a Buddhist community, the environment and ecosystem were a prime concern to
planners and developers. Before any construction was started, an ecological master plan and two
environmental site assessments were completed by independent contractors (K. Lowe-Charde,
Personal Conversation, Oct. 10, 2015). These steps were necessary for the property to be sold so
that the City of Portland could provide the required background information as well as the
potential risks associated with the site to interested purchasers. The completed Phase 1 and Phase
Figure 1: Kakumyo Lowe-Charde at the
brownfield ready to clean it

9 | P a g e
2 documentations outlined all contaminations found as well as professional recommendations on
how to move forward with project development.
During the planning stages of the site redevelopment, a master plan was formulated and
included a new and improved stormwater management plan and a methane mitigation system (K.
Lowe-Charde, Personal Conversation, Oct. 10, 2015). With regards to stormwater management,
bioswales were incorporated to the design to filter the stormwater and slow it down. Essentially,
the system is designed to direct stormwater to run through as many plants and soils as possible,
rather than it going directly to a freshwater source. Since the ecosystem in the area is considered
highly threatened, creating a way to sustain and restore the site has been one of the main
priorities over the course of this project. Given that the site was a former landfill, the developers
found it difficult to work on because of the topography and all the cement and asphalt that pre-
existed on the site. Despite these complications, the developers have been able to push through
and identify ways to successfully complete their goals of retaining a naturalist mindset while
sticking to their budget and time constraints.
A prime example of an ecological initiative set forth by Dharma Rain would be their
revitalization of the Oak Savanna Tree population in the area. When the land was still a virgin
forest, these trees populated a great portion of the area; unfortunately, their existence in the
habitat has been scarce since. The master plan for Siskiyou Square took into consideration the
preservation of this specific type of tree in addition to other native species. The initiative was
designed to provide parcels that would help bring back and sustain these threatened species.
Dharma Rain’s efforts are being rewarded with each new bird, plant, and insect that has been
reintroduced to the habitat.
Economic and Funding
Overall, the project was estimated to cost six million dollars and Dharma Rain
established five different elements with regards to how they planned on reaching their funding
target. These elements included sales/savings, private loans, Siskiyou Cohousing, public grants,
Capital campaign, and also, any future fundraising.
Siskiyou Co-housing is a housing program that has leased two acres for 90 years and was
able to raise the most money so far (Dharma Rain Zen Center, 2015). Both the national
government and the City of Portland provided funding for this project in addition to the
substantial contribution of almost $3 million from donors and private loans.

10 | P a g e
While construction is still underway, the surrounding communities are already seeing the
benefits of redevelopment through higher property values. Before the land acquisition was
completed there were two neighboring properties that were up for sale. The Dharma Rain Center
decided to purchase one of the parcels of lands for $1.75 million while the other property has still
yet to have been sold. The purchase of the Dharma Rain site demonstrated the value of Siskiyou
Square and subsequently increased the price of the neighboring property by $2 million (K.
Lowe-Charde, Personal Conversation, Oct. 10, 2015). The new development also created
employment opportunities for the community. Three additional full time jobs have been
established in addition to the nine full time employees already working and living at the Zen
Center. On top of the permanent jobs created, approximately thirty construction jobs have also
been established throughout of the development process. Although some of these jobs are only
temporary all these changes and additions have stimulated the local economy.
Social and Historical
Overall, this site has received a warm welcome from community members, as well as
both local and federal governments alike (K. Lowe-Charde, Personal Conversation, Oct. 10,
Figure 2: Siskiyou Square Funding Breakdown

11 | P a g e
2015). Originally, a Walmart was planned at the site location but there was strong opposition
from the community. The employers at the Zen Center had previously contemplated purchasing
the site and decided to finally do so after observing all the protests for the unwanted Walmart.
Working with developers, the Zen Center staff created an integrative mind frame that took into
consideration a majority of the community’s preferences.
The community was particularly enthralled with the natural aspect of the redevelopment
plan and was delighted with Dharma Rain’s choice compared to the Walmart alternative. To
ensure that the voices of all community members could be heard, the Zen Center sent out mail
surveys, numerous emails, and even set up a focus group. These outreach efforts confirmed that
there were no objections throughout the community that would prevent or inhibit development.
Regulation and Ethics
The Dharma Rain Zen Center has a strong community within its own quarters and a lot of
their practices are based on ethical considerations and religious beliefs. Moral values were an
important motivating factor in the creation and design of the new square. Members of Dharma
Rain wanted to use it as a way to model how redevelopment may be done from a Buddhist
perspective. With this in mind, they made efforts to responsibly decrease the negative impacts of
construction and development on both the land and the earth in general.
Siskiyou Square has been in progress since 2012 and is still undergoing development and
modifications to this day. The project managers believe that the renovation of the site will always
be a working progress due its destructive past as a landfill. The developers assert that the way
they tackle each obstacle is the key to a complete and successful redevelopment. According to
their own beliefs, this is most easily accomplished by staying honest about their intentions and
what truly matters. Not only does this help them stay in touch with their personal goals, but it
also allows them to comply with the regulations set forth by government entities as well.
Even with inherently good intentions, Siskiyou Square had to recognize and obey
regulations put forth by local and federal governments. In total, about twelve different
government entities were involved with the project including the EPA and the City of Portland.
Conveniently, most regulations they had to comply with came from the City of Portland whom
they have had the most involvement and interactions with. According to Mr. Lowe-Charde this
redevelopment has been a complicated project, but with regards to government restrictions and
setbacks they have been very fortunate. However, similar to any other development, there have

12 | P a g e
still been challenges along the way. One complex aspect of developing the site entailed the
inclusion and improvement of a 900-foot long road. Altogether, this cost them $480,000 out of
the total project money pool; specifically, the developers reference this as one thing they wish
they could have done without.
Lessons Learned
Since the site was a former quarry and then a landfill comprised of construction debris, a
lot of land clearing was necessary prior to development. Fortunately, there were community
members who were enthusiastic about the project and were eager to assist with landscaping. The
efforts to incorporate the community helped move the plans forward and have resulted in overall
acceptance and appreciation of the project. The community involvement and positive reactions,
in addition to the ample support from donors and the ecological restoration, all worked together
to create a delightful and rewarding experience for everyone involved. The best things for Lowe-
Charde were the “variety of tasks and having [a] great and meaningful impact on the world” (K.
Lowe-Charde, Personal Conversation, Oct. 10, 2015).
Figure 3: Projection of Siskiyou Square

13 | P a g e
The trends across the United States have typically focused on using resources for the sole
advancement of human development with no regard to the environment. Humans have had no
problem with clearing natural habitats and untouched land and resources in order to create new
structures rather than renovating and working with the ones that already exist and are not being
used. The Dharma Zen Center community is trying to work with the environment in order to
keep the natural environment as intact as possible. This case study provides a prime example of
how to redevelop a brownfield site in a way that truly makes a difference on the environment.
The main lesson to be learned is that any given person should not only be aware of, but also
respect the many perspectives involved in a development project. These varying perspectives can
come from the formal stakeholders involved, the community members, and the native species
inhabiting the area. This is not to say that the goals and timelines of the project are not equally
important, it simply means that these perspectives must be acknowledged in a world with a
system that has disregarded them for so many years already. Essentially, having efficiency is
important, but doing it within a conservative and sustainable manner is what will allow nature to
prosper once again.

15 | P a g e
Alumnae Valley
Wellesley College has transformed Alumnae Valley, once a former 175 spot parking lot on the
all-female campus, into a fully functional wetland. With the help of MVV Associates, this
redevelopment project received the General Design Award of Excellence by the ASLA in 2006.
This honor was awarded to Alumnae Valley for its commendable incorporation of sustainable
design elements, which offer tremendous environmental benefits across the 13.5 acres of
Wellesley college campus where redevelopment occurred (From Brownfield to Greenfield,
2013).
The success of Alumnae Valley’s redevelopment is due to an interdependent incorporation of
the four components –Ecological/Environmental; Economic/Funding; Social/Historical; and
Regulatory—through all of the steps of brownfield redevelopment7
.
The environmental conditions of Wellesley College were greatly improved through the
cleanup and remediation of the parking lot. The main design element, which is also the dominant
ecological element, was the creation of a wetland to promote stormwater management; create
habitats for an array of plants and animals; improve soil health through erosion prevention;
create a fully functional hydrological system that captures and cleans water; and reduce the on-
site carbon footprint (From Brownfield to Greenfield, 2013). In order to achieve these
sustainability endeavors, the parking lot had to undergo redevelopment and cleanup before it
could become ecologically viable.
7
Which was confirmed in an interview with Wellesley College’s Sustainability Director, Patrick Willoughby, and a
wide variety of secondary sources.
Figure 4: Alumnae Valley Before and After

16 | P a g e
The parking lot was built over glacial mounds8
covered in toxic dirt, which required
remediation to manage these soils. Wellesley College and MVV Associates worked to amend the
soil by removing the most toxic soil; they also capped and collected the soil that was only mildly
contaminated in order to reuse, fill-in, and reconstruct the foundational soil. These mounds raised
the entire site six feet above the previous ground level and had plans to be planted with meadows
that could be seen along Alumnae Valley (From Brownfield to Greenfield, 2013). Before the
project was completed, the water was drained into the adjacent Lake Waban and the campus had
to keep dams there at all times to run the water through vegetated soils. That being said, the
biggest improvement since the completion of the project has been stormwater management and
wildlife habitat restoration. The design of the wetland inherently incorporated a naturalistic
landscape that allows stormwater to flow into a bioswale, then to a sedimentary bay, and finally
into a cattail marsh (P. Willoughby, Personal Conversation, Oct. 21, 2015).
8
The original landscape was shaped by ice glaciers, which created these glacial mounds. These mounds are just hills
and rises which can be seen along the landscape of the campus.

17 | P a g e
With regards to wildlife restoration, the wetland has successfully introduced new wildlife
such as cattails, hawks, deer, and redwing blackbirds; it is regarded as being a much better
habitat than a parking lot. Additionally, adding in a wetland has not only improved, but restored
the hydrological system on the campus and a geosynthetic clay liner was used to seal
contaminated soils and prevent water from prematurely returning to the original water table,
while cleaning and draining into the existing system (From Brownfield to Greenfield, 2013).
Alumnae Valley was one of three redevelopment projects going on at the same time on
the Wellesley campus. It was predominantly funded by the college and relied heavily on
donations rather than federal funding or grants. The donor gifts came from a range of anonymous
donors including a considerable amount of money from the Class of 1962. These donors were
driven to participate and contribute to the revitalization of the campus because they realized it
was critical to the restoration and for major ecosystem expansions at Wellesley College (P.
Willoughby, Personal Conversation, Oct. 21, 2015).
The effort to turn the area into a wetland barred the possibility of future development.
Although ceasing development can limit economic progress, the trustees realized that and
thought [the wetland creation] was important enough that it not be built on (P. Willoughby,
Personal Conversation, Oct. 21, 2015). The redevelopment of Alumnae Valley took place during
the downturn of another project on the campus. To keep up with the complex landscape master
plan approved by the board of trustees in 1998, the development team had to work to get the
crew back to what it was supposed to be by increasing the skill level of people hired (P.
Willoughby, Personal Conversation, Oct. 21,2015). The increased skillset required for the
upkeep, maintenance, and landscaping of Alumnae Valley has created jobs within the
community and relevant training.
A contributing factor to Alumnae Valley’s success was the preemptive decision to
incorporate community engagement throughout the planning process. This action works to
prevent unnecessary and unwarranted holdups during the construction stage. There was a lot of
close involvement with upper administration throughout the period. While it was great to get

18 | P a g e
everyone’s input, the project team realized it was important to do that before construction so as
to follow through with the plan and use the time, crew, and equipment efficiently (P.
Willoughby, Personal Conversation, Oct. 21,2015). Alumnae Valley integrated inclusive
committees consisting of faculty, staff, students, and community members; all to be heavily
involved in pre-development discussions regarding the final redevelopment plan.
Since its completion, the community has received Alumnae Valley very well. All of the
students today think that it is the way it has always been and never saw it as a parking garage,
unless they do their research, they don’t have an understanding of the what it was before and the
way it is today (P. Willoughby, Personal Conversation, Oct. 21,2015). Removing the parking
lot to increase walkability was a focus in the 1998 Master Plan on pedestrian safety to make the
entire campus pedestrian friendly. Now, students and local community members naturally walk
through that part of campus regularly, which has played a part in increasing the usage of the site.
In previous years, wetlands were underappreciated in comparison to today. The morals
taken into consideration when creating a wetland in Alumnae Valley were focused on trying to
rebuild the site to what it was while understanding, respecting, and valuing that nature is more
important than how we have treated it all around the world (P. Willoughby, Personal
Conversation, Oct. 21,2015). Since there were already several projects going on around the
campus, the regulatory agencies—MassDEP, EPA, and USACE—melted over directly from the
most recent project, Paint Shop Pond9
(P. Willoughby, Personal Conversation, Oct. 21, 2015).
Wellesley College, being a private institution, owned its own land and did not have to
undergo the same regulations that public land owners have to; there was not too much public
policy but lots of elements of regulation agencies such as the EPA, MassDEP, and the local
resource commission (P. Willoughby, Personal Conversation, Oct. 21, 2015). These entities
were already aware of what the development team was doing at Paint Shop Pond and saw
Alumnae Valley as an equally positive extension of that, which alleviated conflicts in the
regulatory process.
9
Paint shop Pond was another brownfield remediation project going on at the same time on the campus. This 12
acre site was a former paint factory which the university and development teams had to remediate the 22 acres of
impact from the contaminants. The project reclaimed 30 acres of the campus that were restricted due to exposure of
contaminants, restored the wetland habitat, and restored the mill dam structure.

19 | P a g e
Lessons Learned
Alumnae Valley, leading by example as an ASLA award winner, showcases successful
brownfield redevelopment, which can be used as a model for other planners to utilize in their
own redevelopment practices. Specifically, this project proves that funding for redevelopment
can be obtained without grants and/or federal money so long as there are donors who value the
suitability of their communities. That being said, where the redevelopment funds come from is a
major consideration for any project team; however, that does not mean that a development
project must result in economic growth. Alumnae Valley has demonstrated that any
redevelopment can solely focus on ecological restoration and does not always need to prioritize
initiatives that promote economic growth.
Another way Alumnae Valley sets precedents for planners and developers is by
exemplifying the overlying national—and international— social shift with regards to ethical
considerations of the environment. Wellesley College has a collection of people, such as the
trustees of the College, who value the status and conditions of the environment on and around
campus and willingly act keeping those things in mind. With positive changes and plans for
redevelopment, projects such as this one can be supported and backed by the local communities,
developers and project team members, and the government entities; resulting in the promotion of
successful revitalizations.
For any development teams wishing to take on an initiative like Alumnae Valley, it is
important to note that when it comes to brownfield redevelopment, it’s going to take a lot of time
and a lot of money. Although some people may not have as many resources as the Alumnae
Valley team did with its donors, it’s going to have to be done at some point; redeveloping
sooner than later to get the benefits more promptly (P. Willoughby, Personal Conversation, Oct.
21,2015).

20 | P a g e
Downtown Market Grand Rapids

22 | P a g e
Sustainable Technology Industrial Park
Cape Charles, Virginia
In order for a redevelopment project to be successful, the four underlying components
must all correlate with one another and function as a unit. In the event that this is not the case, it
is critical to examine what specifically would cause a redevelopment project to be unsuccessful
and which factor or factors are at fault for such a failure. The Cape Charles Sustainable
Technology Industrial Park (STIP) is an example of an unsuccessful redevelopment venture and
serves to educate future project managers on how to avoid failure within their given project.
The Cape Charles STIP comprises a maximum of 200 acres10
and is located in
Northampton County, Virginia. Out of the entire property, approximately 25 acres were formerly
used as an unregulated dumping site for almost 40 years. According to Katie Nunez, the
Northampton County Administrator who had some involvement on this project, the
redevelopment of this site was planned to
have a core focus on both environmental
and economic factors in order to maximize
the effectiveness of the project (K. Nunez,
Personal Conversation, Oct. 23, 2015).
Unfortunately, the environmental initiatives
established by STIP were too ahead of their
time, which inhibited the other aspects of
the project and prevented the redevelopment
from being successfully completed.
The main reason STIP was planned with a focus on environmental loyalty was due to the
location and the heritage of the county. Cape Charles can be found in the middle of a very fragile
ecosystem between the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean (K. Nunez, Personal
Conversation, and Oct. 23, 2015); it consists of rich farmlands, productive waters, vast wetlands,
and miles of unspoiled coastline (Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot, 2000). Due to
the town's roots in these ecological factors, they did not want to forfeit natural or cultural
10
The varying sources used as references for this section provided no clear distinction of acreage
Figure 5: Illustration of the planned construction for STIP, source Katie Nunez

23 | P a g e
resources for short-term economic gains throughout redevelopment (Northampton County,
Virginia).
Before the project could procure funding or initiate the actual redevelopment, an EIS had
to be conducted. Through this study, they found a northeastern beach tiger beetle, which happens
to be a protected species (K. Nunez, Personal Conversation, Nov. 5, 2015). The project team
decided to incorporate the protection of this species into a pre-planned coastal nature preserve
that would spread across 29 acres of land along the Bay Side of the Eastern Shore (Cape Charles
Natural Area Preserve). With the help of the Virginia DCR, the nature preserve was planned to
create biodiversity on the property and specifically took into consideration stormwater filtration
as a contribution to the preserve. There is also a long boardwalk that enables passive recreation
for the public while the preserve itself provides habitat for wildlife and natural communities11
.
Despite the fact that the overall STIP development was unsuccessful, the nature preserve was,
fortunately, one of the aspects of the project that was completed before the county sold the
property to a private owner in August of 2007. That being said, the nature preserve was opened
to the public while the county owned the site and the trail is still open to this day since it was
turned over to the DCR (K. Nunez, Personal Conversation, Oct. 23, 2015).
In addition to the EIS, the locality also had to maintain compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Act
as well as the high standards of other regulatory agencies such as the previously mentioned DCR.
In an effort to comply with their standards, the county personnel worked in partnership with both
federal and state agencies to develop a set of strict covenants, formally known as the Declaration
of Covenants and Restrictions, which all tenants would have to abide by. Essentially, the goal of
these requirements and standards were to establish the STIP as a national prototype that would
showcase an economically viable business model while simultaneously working to enhance the
surrounding ecosystem (Northampton County, Virginia, n.d.). These covenants put limits on
energy usage and depletion, water usage and reuse, trash output, and performance standards (K.
Nunez, Personal Conversation, Oct. 23, 2015). Unfortunately, these environmental covenants
were too restrictive for any potential occupants and wound up having an opposite and negative
effect on the project.12
11
The key informant, Katie Nunez, claimed without any formal documentation or verification.
12
During the late 1990’s, there were not very many industrial companies paying mind to environmental concerns.
The strict covenants set forth by STIP wound up discouraging any potential companies from signing a lease with
STIP, which resulted in a vacant building and led to the transfer of the property to the private owner.

24 | P a g e
In a 2008 Memorandum13
from Katie Nunez to the Northampton County Board of
Supervisors, it is noted that the project obtained a variety of grants in addition to county monies
that assisted in the funding of the STIP project. Some of the grant proceeds came from entities
such as the U.S. Commerce, the VDOT, and the Governor's Opportunity Fund. These funds were
intended to go towards planning, economic development strategy, tourism, marketing,
infrastructure, capital building construction, administrative expenses, and financing expenses.
Additionally, the EPA provided the county with a $200,000 grant as part of their Brownfields
Economic Redevelopment Initiative. Overall, there were nine major stakeholders that provided
grants for the project and eight different county contributors to produce a total of $9.3 million
combined in funds (K. Nunez, Personal Conversation, Jan. 3, 2008)
After the completion of the first building, the county began searching for companies to
fill the units before they proceeded with further construction. A company called WAKO
Chemicals14
wound up being the only business that could maintain compliance with STIP’s strict
environmental covenants. The county searched for more tenants but after approximately five
years, they realized that the project might simply be ahead of its time. Therefore, the leadership
decided to turn off the stipend and cut the funding for STIP due to the lack of jobs or money
being generated that was supposed to make up for the $9.3 million spent on the development.
That being said, some of the grant agencies involved required that they be paid back; a process
13
The full memorandum is in Appendix C.
14
WAKO Chemicals, Japanese owned company based out of Richmond, Virginia. WAKO Chemicals collect
horseshoe crabs and extract the blood from them just before tossing them back into the water. This blood provides
the medical community with products that yield valuable pharmaceuticals.
Illustration and birdseye view of the completed STIP building, occupied by
WAKO Chemicals, and the nature preserve trail. [Pictures Source: Katie Nunez]

25 | P a g e
that has been problematic but will hopefully be finished by the end of this year (K. Nunez,
Personal Conversation, Oct. 23, 2015).
To ensure a positive economic outcome from this project, the owners of STIP wound up
selling the site to a company named Sugar Run, LLC in 2007. Sugar Run, LLC purchased 120
acres of the property from the county for a total of $3.3 million. Wako Chemicals purchased their
section of the property from Sugar Run, LLC and are still there today. In 2008, Sugar Run, LLC
formally removed the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and began the establishment of
a large yacht repair center (K. Nunez, Personal Conversation, Oct. 23, 2015).
Northampton County has had a long history of being economically depressed and Cape
Charles was identified as one of the poorest locations in the county (K. Nunez, Personal
Conversation, Oct. 23, 2015), consisting of 13,000 residents, 27% of which were living below
the poverty line (Northampton County, Virginia, n.d.). Therefore, Northampton County decided
to undergo a transformation that focused on sustainable and economic development with Cape
Charles and STIP acting as the anchor for the movement (Northampton County, Virginia, n.d.).
Katie Nunez mentioned that the main goals of the STIP project were to promote an
economically stimulating industrial design while concurrently respecting the historically fragile
ecosystem in Cape Charles. The plan also had to take into consideration all of the people that live
in the community. The county itself played a very important role in the developmental planning
process to ensure that their needs, desires, and concerns were acknowledged. Katie Nunez
asserted that a year and a half worth of community planning meetings and design charrettes
enabled the local, state, and federal governments to incorporate as many of the citizens’ requests
as possible into the master plan (K. Nunez, Personal Conversation, Oct. 23, 2015).
Despite the fact that the evolution of STIP was unsuccessful, the previous brownfield site
has been transformed into a development that has had a positive impact on the community. When
Sugar Run, LLC purchased the property from the county, they were able to turn it into a yacht
repair center that promotes economic development and highlights nature while delivering a
satisfying service to this coastal community. This transformation has brought on four full time
jobs and ten to fifteen seasonal ones while WAKO Chemicals currently provides eight full time
positions. Cape Charles is now one of five towns that have had a resurgence of investments in
downtown areas due to the site development (K. Nunez, Personal Conversation, Oct. 23, 2015).

26 | P a g e
The development of STIP was initiated in the early nineties when the President’s Council
selected Cape Charles as a national enterprise community, which designated the locality as a
federal and state priority for technical and financial resources (Brownfields Assessment
Demonstration Pilot). Soon after that, the Governor of Virginia identified the area as a Virginia
Enterprise Zone. This allowed the county to have access to key resource personnel from state
agencies as well as a state tax incentive for eco-industrial development (Northampton County,
Virginia). Another important entity that supported Cape Charles for the development of STIP
was the EPA. This partnership arose due to the fact that the planned development site was
located on a brownfield made up of a former municipal dump, dockside, rail yard, and the
remains of abandoned industrial operations. Similarly to any other brownfield site, the STIP
property started out with an unknown amount of hazardous substances that could threaten public
health and the environment. Therefore, the EPA chose a 155 acre portion of the STIP site for its
Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative which allowed them to assist the county in
getting the project on its feet and to contribute the $200,000 grant (Brownfields Assessment
Demonstration Pilot).
In order to comply with the state and federal regulations, the STIP team developed their
environmental covenants, which were essentially their own set of regulations. These covenants
placed strict limitations on things such as energy usage and waste output. The ideal company that
would fill one of these units was said to be a green company that focused on environmental
development such as solar panels (K. Nunez, Personal Conversation, Oct. 23, 2015). In the end,
STIP’s effort to enforce resource and nature conservation was too demanding and wound up
discouraging companies, except for WAKO Chemicals, from signing a lease agreement (K.
Nunez, Personal Conversation, Oct. 23, 2015).
Lessons Learned
In a broad sense, one of the main lessons to be learned here is that even if the planned
development is unsuccessful, that does not mean that there cannot be positive byproducts. The
original development plan for this particular site, a Sustainable Technology Industrial Park, was
never completed however; the site was still able to be transformed into a successful business.
Overall, the three main positive aspects of this project were the nature preserve, WAKO
Chemicals occupancy, and the yacht repair center. All three of these outcomes have received

27 | P a g e
positive feedback from the community, stimulated the economy, and incorporated the locality’s
heritage by respecting the surrounding ecosystem.
The Sustainable Technology Park not only incorporated but also had high expectations
for economics and the environment while meeting, and sometimes exceeding, the standards of
regulatory agencies. This project also paid special attention to the community and the history of
Cape Charles in order to provide citizens with the most beneficial end result. Unfortunately, the
project administrators lacked the foresight to associate each individual factor to the others. This
caused disconnect within the project significant enough to limit success. Specifically, the
environmental concerns were exceptional within their own right but did not take into
consideration the social aspect needed to make them work. The strict sustainable covenants were
too harsh for actual business owners to be able to comply with at that time and without the
people to apply these rules, the rules themselves carry no weight. As a result, the redevelopment
project was unable to utilize its other successful factors and thrive the way that it was intended
to.

29 | P a g e
Guthrie Green
Tulsa, Oklahoma
The Guthrie Green redevelopment project had a focus on bringing sustainable
environmental designs into an area that was once run down and abandoned. Guthrie Green is the
outcome of a brownfield redevelopment project in downtown Tulsa, Oklahoma that transformed
a 2.7-acre, former industrial warehouse brownfield site into an urban greenspace15
(Guthrie
Green, 2015). This project ultimately took into consideration the four main redevelopment
components in an effort to exemplify what it takes to successfully redevelop a brownfield site.
Photo of Industrial Warehouse (before picture) Photo of Guthrie Green after Redevelopment
With regards to environmental considerations, the Guthrie Green project involves two
main aspects: the successful removal of contaminants from the site and the incorporation of
sustainable designs into its overall plan. In the early stages of development, an environmental
assessment was performed on the site to detect and clarify which specific contaminants were
present. From this, a total of twelve underground storage tanks were discovered. These tanks
created implications for the cleanup of the project due to the fact that it was originally perceived
that only two underground storage tanks were present on the site. All twelve underground
storage tanks were removed in this one city square block, and the soil was then remediated of all
other contaminants16
. The OCC was primarily responsible for the cleanup process and they made
sure that all contaminants were safely removed using a vacuum truck, which was then
15
A greenspace is an area of land that is either fully or partially covered in a form of vegetation (i.e. grass, trees,
shrubs, etc) which may include parks or community gardens. (What is Open Space/Green Space?, 2015) Therefore
an urban greenspace is an area of land located in an urban setting that provides such greenspace.
16
The total list of contaminants that were addressed in the remediation process were, fluid petroleum hydrocarbon
(TPH), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), and lead.

30 | P a g e
transported and properly disposed of at a facility approved by the Oklahoma DEQ (R. Kottke,
personal communication, October 14, 2015). After all of these steps were complete, confirmation
soil testing was performed and verified complete remediation for all of the soil on site (Guthrie
Green, 2015).
As of September 2012, Guthrie Green was officially completed and had successfully
incorporated a variety of environmentally conscious and sustainable designs. For instance, a
geothermal well field was created, LED lighting and solar panels were installed, and stormwater
management elements were created
in the form of bioswales. The
geothermal well field lies 500 feet
underneath the park with a total of
120 wells that provides a heating
and cooling system for two
neighboring buildings. The original
plan for the geothermal well field
was to supply geothermal energy for
the entire park; however, the
discovery of the twelve underground storage tanks limited their ability to apply the system
comprehensively to the park. Instead, the geothermal well field supplies heating and cooling to
two neighboring buildings. That being said, this renewable geothermal technology system has
successfully reduced the costs of heating and cooling for both these buildings by 60%.
The second notable renewable energy technology that was incorporated with the project
was the installation of 192 solar panels on the roof of one of the old loading docks. The reuse of
this historic loading dock created the pavilion that is incorporated into the design of the park and
is responsible for contributing to the overall energy demands of the park17
. The utilization of
LED lighting has also helped reduce the overall site demand for electricity, energy usage
maintenance costs, and light pollution.
The incorporation and placement of bioswales as a means of storm water management has also
been a successful environmental element for the development of Guthrie Green. Essentially,
17
The overall success of the solar panels has been measured based on the electrical output which is estimated to
generate 37.83 kW with an annual savings of $5,155.

31 | P a g e
water runoff is channeled into these bioswales to help supply water to the landscape and filter the
stormwater prior to its entrance into the storm sewer. The incorporation of all of these elements
of sustainable design is a major contributor to the success of the project in terms of positive
environmental impacts (Guthrie Green, 2015).
Another component to Guthrie Green’s development involves the funding contributions
and economic outcomes. The project owner – the George Kaiser Family Foundation –
contributed the primary sources of funding for this project in addition to the funding acquired
through public grants. In particular, the Oklahoma DEQ provided the funding for the remediation
process and documentation through the ARRA petroleum sub-grant, which totaled $200,000.
Again under the ARRA another grant that was acquired was the Energy Demand Reduction
Grant from the OK Commerce, which provided a total amount of $2,580,000. (Guthrie Green,
2015). Additionally, the Tulsa Industrial Authority had some involvement in funding the project,
however the total cost is unknown (personal communication, October, 14 2015).
Once the funding was secured from respective sponsors, the developers of the project had
to ensure they were meeting any and all requirements set forth by these contributors. For
example, specific plans for the removal of the underground storage tanks had to be completed to
the satisfaction of the EPA Brownfields Revitalization Act. Also, developers had to allow for a
public review and comment period to ensure the community was involved and there was no
substantial opposition. (R. Kottke, personal communication, October 14, 2015).
Since this redevelopment project was completed, it has raised the property values in the
community by turning the area that was considered to be on the wrong side of the tracks, into a
place where more and more people are gathering and building a stronger sense of community (R.
Kottke, personal communication, October 14, 2015). Employment opportunities in the area have
increased through the development of other businesses and other revitalization projects as well
(R. Kottke, personal communication, October, 14 2015). This proves Guthrie Green has been
positively contributing to its local economic community, which is very important when creating
successful brownfield redevelopment sites.

32 | P a g e
The location of Guthrie Green in the Brady Arts District (The Brady Area) of downtown
Tulsa had a major impact on the foundational interests for redeveloping this brownfield site. The
site itself dates back to the early beginnings of Tulsa as an industrial center in which the railroad,
in the 1880’s, contributed greatly to the growth of the area’s economic development. In 1905, the
discovery of oil from the Glenn Pool Oil Field created a shift of oil industries concentrating
heavily in this area (The Brady Arts District: A Small Area Plan, 2013).
Besides being an industrially focused area, the location of this site was also part of the
Greenwood District, which was a fairly prosperous business region and residential area for the
African American community during the early 1900’s (1921 Tulsa Race Riot, 2015). In 1921,
one of the most impactful events in Tulsa's history greatly affected the social and cultural values
of the area. These upsetting events were known as the Tulsa Race Riots18
and left the area
troubled and, moreover, a place that many did not want to be (R. Kottke, personal
communication, October 14, 2015). Additional difficulties came in the 1940's when wholesale
buildings and warehouses developed greatly from the transition of the dependence on the
railroad to the use of trucking as a means for transporting products. Eventually, the value of the
area as a whole decreased, the number of abandoned and vacant properties increased, and the
area was no longer considered an economic center in Tulsa (The Brady Arts District: A Small
Area Plan, 2013).
In the 1970's and beginning of the 1980's, an interest was sparked to renew and revitalize
the Brady Area. In March of 2003, the City of Tulsa began to look at ways to improve the area
through infill development strategies with the Brady Village Infill Development Design
Guidelines (The Brady Arts District: A Small Area Plan, 2013). With this came a plan of action
to create a central multi-purpose town square that provided a park that required sustainable
design elements and energy use (The Brady Arts District: A Small Area Plan, 2013). It was in
2007 that the George Kaiser Family Foundation bought a contaminated former industrial
warehouse brownfield in the Brady Arts District, and created what is now known as Guthrie
Green (Guthrie Green, 2015).
18
From May 31 to June 1 1921, the infamous Tulsa Race Riot occurred due to an alleged assault on a white female
elevator operator by a young African American man. The timeline and details of the events that occurred throughout
this 14-hour riot period are vague and still somewhat unknown, but overall, it destroyed the area (1921 Tulsa Race
Riot, 2015).

33 | P a g e
By creating a long-term, sustainable, urban green space that embodies the creativity and
vision of the Brady Arts District, the impacts of Guthrie Green on its local community is
considered to be one of the most outstanding aspects of this project. Rita Kottke is a Remediation
Programs Manager for the Land Protection Division of the Oklahoma DEQ and had some
involvement with this project. Rita remarked on the community's response to the Guthrie Green
project noting, "It's huge for Tulsa. It is a place where people gather. They have yoga, they have
routine musical events, they have outdoor Pilates ... markets, food trucks ... It's being widely
used [and] it's becoming the hangout space" (R. Kottke, personal communication, October 14,
2015). From this, it can be seen that the community has not only benefited from this project, but
they also played large role in making it a success.
Photo of Section of Guthrie Green
The George Kaiser Family Foundation is a Tulsa based non-profit organization that
focuses on creating opportunities for young children in the community by investing in early
childhood education, community health, social services, and civic enhancement (George Kaiser
Family Foundation, 2014). As the project owner for this brownfield redevelopment project, the
George Kaiser Family Foundation based a lot of their ethical motives for this project on these

34 | P a g e
principles of their operation to focus on improving life for the people in Tulsa (R. Kottke,
Personal Communication, Oct. 14, 2015). Additionally, their goal or vision for the site was to use
"green" and sustainable development strategies and designs to create a community gathering
space that would highlight the arts in the middle of the Brady Arts District (Guthrie Green,
2015). What was developed from this objective was exactly that.
Lessons Learned
Overall, The Guthrie Green project is an example of a brownfield redevelopment project
that demonstrates comprehensively successful outcomes. This is accomplished particularly
through the combination of sustainable designs, the use of funding from both private and public
donations, and the efforts to promote community integration. On the other hand, the discovery
and removal of contaminants such as the unseen storage tanks, have demonstrated that there may
be unexpected obstacles that can impede the redevelopment process.
Additionally, the fact that the redevelopment lacked ecological motivations to restore the area to
a natural habitat could be considered an unsuccessful aspect of this project. Although the Guthrie
Green project did not focus on such ecological initiatives, it did pay attention to the locational
context of the site meaning that the developers recognized that the area needed something to
uplift the community and revitalize the area through a central gathering space. It also considered
the values of the local community such as, the importance of investing in sustainability and
environmentally friendly designs in new developments, and the value of having a space where
artistic expression and entertainment could flourish and bring people together. Therefore the
consideration of community values and environmentally friendly initiatives are what makes
brownfield redevelopment successful.

35 | P a g e
Overall Lessons Learned
What Makes for Successful Brownfield Redevelopment
In order for a brownfield to be successfully remediated and prepared for redevelopment,
all of the potential harmful or toxic chemicals/substances must be removed so that they no longer
pose a potential threat to the specified locality. Brownfield redevelopment must address each of
the underlying components established by the team – Environmental and Ecological; Economics
and Funding; Social and Historical; and Regulation and Ethics. Being deemed successful means
that all of the components are acknowledged and incorporated throughout the project
redevelopment; not one component functions against any of the others.
Simply including each component individually does not necessarily result in a successful
redevelopment. Instead, the project plan must ensure that each component complements and can
function with the others during both the planning and development stages. Taking into
consideration the specific examples and outcomes from all five case studies; the personal
interviews and research; and knowledgeable, individual perspectives – it can be concluded that
any brownfield can be redeveloped into a successful site so long as these recommendations are
acknowledged and integrated into any project plans.

36 | P a g e
Environmental and
Ecological
Economic
and
Funding
Regulation
and Ethics
Beginning with the
planning stages, developers need to
ensure that their new site is
properly cleaned up by removing
all contaminants and respecting the
ideas and needs of the local
community when proposing a
redevelopment plan. A
redevelopment should not change a
thriving community nor should it
introduce unneeded changes
because, ultimately, without the
support of the community, the improvement will not flourish. When purchasing property,
developers need to consider the type of land they are buying and what the previous use was as
this will play a large part in determining what can or cannot be developed in the future. Costs
and funding need to be allocated and finalized during planning stages to ensure that there will be
enough money for all redevelopment procedures. While grants can greatly contribute to projects,
they are not required; it is possible to raise all the money needed to complete a redevelopment,
either through private donations, savings, or investments. To maximize potential funding,
planners should be aware of any and all grants that their site qualifies for, while learning and
understanding all policies and regulations that must be followed to ensure quick and sufficient
work is completed. It is important to become familiar with the local and state regulators and
stakeholders because these entities will be collaborating, making a pleasant and active
relationship beneficial to all parties involved.
Additionally, environmental restoration should be incorporated to prevent further
degradation of space and resources. Not all positive environmental impacts are through direct
ecological restoration, but rather through integrated sustainable initiatives and designs to create a
more naturalistic environment. These initiatives can range from minor design adjustments to
complete environmental re-enlivenment. Specifically, some of these initiatives include, but are
not limited to: geothermal wells, greenhouses, better stormwater management systems, or
creating a greenspace. All these aspects can help minimize the negative effects to the

37 | P a g e
surrounding ecosystem and reduce ecological footprints. To ensure all these features are
included, distribution of funds must be handled accordingly by following a master plan that
includes estimations of costs and payments. If all these mechanisms are utilized during
redevelopment it should create a site that generates maximum permanent jobs, increases property
values, is sustainable, and proves to be a space where the community – human and nonhuman –
feel welcome.
Having an extensive quantity of abandoned structures degrades the environment, lowers
property values, and is considered an eyesore to the community. Therefore, it is critical to create
a redevelopment plan for these sites and turn them into a progressive and healthy habitation for
all human and nonhuman species. Studying and comparing the aspects and variations among the
five different brownfield redevelopment case studies, the team was able to identify which
specific actions led to the respective outcome for each case study. This allowed the team to
narrow down and establish a common aspect across the board – whether a site is finished or not,
a redevelopment plan must integrate all four of the established components in a way that not one
component prevents the others from being effective. One of the most prominent takeaways from
the case study research is that redevelopment is more successful when it incorporates both
remediation and a new form of sustainable development. Without continuing the development of
a brownfield site post-remediation, the efforts to revitalize the area would be an insufficient use
of the space. Therefore, property owners should incorporate some form of further development,
which is a viable solution in urban areas that have limited resources and space for new
expansions and construction. Drafted using these four components: economic and funding;
environmental and ecological; regulation and ethics; and social and historical, the team testifies
that as long as these components work in coordination with one another, a site should be
redeveloped successfully into a prosperous and valued establishment.

38 | P a g e
Appendix
Appendix A: Interview Materials
Interview Preparation Materials
[Project Name Here] Interview Questionnaire
Interviewee Name: ____________________ Interviewee Job Title: _____________________
Interviewee Involvement in Project: _____________________________________________
Preliminary Questionnaire Details:
 The results of this questionnaire and any follow up interviews will be used for a Senior
Environmental Problem Solving Studio Report.
 All responses to this questionnaire will be used to compile information in our final report. The
results are not confidential and your name and redevelopment involvement may be included,
unless you request otherwise.
 Based on the responses from this initial questionnaire, we may follow up with additional
questions requesting further information.
 At the end of the interview, we will transcribe your responses and send them to you for approval.
Please allow for a one week turn around period.
 We will share the responses for other sites with you at the end in the form of our final report.
 Participation is Voluntary.
Our main categories of research are Environmental/Ecological, Economic/Funding, Social/Historical, and
Policy/Regulation.
If you know someone that would be able to provide us with valuable information on
any of these topics, please provide us their name and contact information below.
Questions
A. ENVIRONMENTAL/ECOLOGICAL
1. Have any positive environmental impacts resulted from this redevelopment project? (or
future expected impacts)
a. If yes, please explain further.
b. Is environmental monitoring of the site ongoing?
2. Did an EIS and/or an executive summary have to be generated?
a. If yes, would you briefly share details?
3. Were sustainable design elements incorporated in this redevelopment (i.e. storm water
management, energy efficiency, green space, etc.)?
4. Has there been a focus on this project to restore and/or create the ecosystem/ habitat?
a. If yes, could you briefly delineate and explain what habitat in particular are you using
(is there any specific vegetation being planted, land cover initiatives)?
5. Has this site been used to educate the public on the environmental aspects of this project?

39 | P a g e
Do you have any other contacts that were involved in the environmental and ecological initiatives
involved in this redevelopment project?
a. If so, would you share their contact information?
B. ECONOMIC / FUNDING
1. What is the (expected) total cost of the project?
2. What percent total funding did this project receive from:
a. Government grants? ________
b. Private investors? _________
c. Other? _________
3. How has redevelopment impacted the property value in the community?
a. Has the property redevelopment considered future impacts of property values?
4. Has the project generated any new, permanent employment opportunities to date?
a. Did the property redevelopment consider future impacts of employment
opportunities?
Do you have any other contacts that were involved in the economic and funding initiatives involved in
this redevelopment project?
If so, would you share their contact information?
C. SOCIAL / HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE?
1. Would you describe the engagement by community residents during the planning?
a. Were/are community members actively involved in the construction/implementation of
the project now?
b. Did community participation obstruct or promote project development?
2. Please briefly describe the natural history of the site (what was on the site before it was
redeveloped)?
a. Please describe the social history of the site.
3. If the project is not yet complete, what has been the community response to
the ongoing redevelopment of the site to date?
4. If the project is fully redeveloped, what has been the community response
and public use to it?
D. POLICY/ REGULATION/ ETHICS
1. Were any moral values a motivating factor in the creation and design of the project?
a. If yes, please briefly describe that.
2. Please describe the steps you had to take to meet the regulatory compliance of the locality:
a. State ______________________________________________________
b. Federal ____________________________________________________
c. Local ______________________________________________________

40 | P a g e
3. Which government entity was most involved in the approval and design implementation of
the project?
4. What public policies/ regulations were the most challenging to overcome? Please explain.
E. CONCLUSION
Thank you for taking the time to answer some of these questions! As a final note,
What would you say the lessons learned would be for other communities considering similar
redevelopment projects?
Appendix B: Regulatory Information
Brownfields Redevelopment Policies
With over 450,000 brownfields in the United States, the redevelopment of such sites
offers an attractive option for both developers and policymakers due to the positive impacts on
the environment and the economy within the community (EPA, 2014). There are varying types
of regulations and programs that help keep the redevelopment process moving as smoothly as
possible. Though developers typically complain about these restrictive regulations, investors
welcome them because they prevent the investors from the dreaded liability of paying for the
cleanup of these potentially contaminated properties (Alberni, 2005).
The United States federal government first addressed brownfield redevelopment over
twenty years ago and has since spent more than $14 billion in cleanup and redevelopment
(Brownfields and Land Revitalization, 2014). The most prominent participant is the EPA who
has established a federal partnership with over twenty other federal agencies including the
Economic Development Administration, the Army Corp of Engineers, and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (The Politics of Redeveloping Brownfields and Abandoned
Property, 2008). Similarly, state programs have recently been established to help incentivize
developers to focus on brownfields by offering reductions in regulatory burdens, relief from
liability in the future if all mitigation standards are met, and financial support throughout the
redevelopment process (Alberni, 2005). Additional stakeholders influencing these incentives
include property owners, local governments, community groups, nonprofit organizations,
investors, developers, environmental consultants, attorneys, and regulators (Brownfields and
Land Revitalization, 2014).
The process of redeveloping brownfields typically includes four phases: predevelopment,
securing the deal, cleanup and development, and property management (Brownfields and Land
Revitalization, 2014). The stages start out with a Targeted Brownfields Assessment to identify
and assess a site for which type of cleanup, if any, is needed. From there, re-use alternatives are
evaluated and a decision must be made to determine what the site will eventually become. In
order to do this, institutional controls, engineering controls, and physical cleanup measures must
be identified with a remedial action plan (The Politics of Redeveloping Brownfields and
Abandoned Property, 2008).
Any plans regarding the redevelopment and/or redevelopment of a brownfield must meet
all federal and state guidelines as well as local planning goals. Some of the major policies that

41 | P a g e
must be adhered to include: the Model Toxics Control Act (MCTA), the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) and its
amendment the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act – commonly
referred to as the “Brownfields Law”, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). These agencies specifically monitor substantive requirements regarding the sufficiency
of a cleanup and administrative requirements regarding the actual cleanup process (Voluntary
Cleanups). Additionally, the sources of finances need to be identified and can come from a
combination of private and public sector funding. This is where the federal, state, and local
programs come into action to offer tax credits, grants, or subsidies to promote site cleanup and
redevelopment (Brownfields and Land Revitalization, 2014).
Appendix C: Sustainable Technology Park Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Katie H. Nunez, County Administrator
DATE: January 3, 2008
RE: Briefing Memo on the Sustainable Technologies Industrial Park (STIP)
and Proposed Sale to Sugar Run, LLC
In light of the election of three new members to the Board of Supervisors, I am presenting this
memo to provide an overview of the development of the Sustainable Technologies Industrial
Park (STIP) as well as a summary of the proposed sale of the STIP to Sugar Run, LLC. This
memo is intended to serve as background material for the larger discussion concerning the
County’s obligations to the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) relative to the
parcel known as the Nature Preserve which will be the focus of our meeting on Friday, January
4, 2008.
Through a variety of grants and local funds, the County purchased property formerly part of the
Brown & Root property in Cape Charles. The genesis and pursuit of the STIP began in the early
1990s, led to the County establishing an Industrial Development Authority (IDA) composed of
representatives from the County appointed by the Board of Supervisors and from the towns of
Exmore, Cheriton and Cape Charles, and to transfer the ownership and management of the STIP
to the IDA in October 1999. After the IDA was unable to attract and retain long-term leases with
businesses under the restrictive Covenants and Declarations, they pursued a possible sale of the
property to local residential developer Dick Foster in 2004/2005. At this point, the County and
IDA was notified that the County was in violation of a grant from DCR (& US Fish and
Wildlife) with the transfer of the property ownership from the County to the IDA as well as the
IDA’s proposed sale of the property to a private developer. With the lapse of the option to
purchase by Mr. Foster, the IDA and the County reached agreement to transfer the ownership of
the property back to the County, which occurred in the fall 2006, in order to allow the County to
address the grant compliance issues to eventually allow the County to possibly sell the property
for economic development purposes. In early spring 2007, the County was approached by Eyre
Baldwin with an economic development proposal for the STIP property and put together a group

42 | P a g e
of investors under the umbrella of Sugar Run, LLC and in August 2007, the County entered into
a contract to sell the STIP property to Sugar Run, LLC.
The STIP property is currently composed of four parcels: Parcel 90-A-1A (80.658 acres), Parcel
90-8-1A1 (39.712 acres), Parcel 90-A-1A4 (2.057 acres), and Parcel 90-A-4C (23.467 acres; aka
the Nature Preserve Parcel). Additionally, there are four parcels owned by the Town of Cape
Charles that are leased to the County. There is one tenant, WAKO Chemicals, in the STIP
Bldg. The property has a very restrictive Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that
encompass the use of this property; based upon certain dates, these declarations can be removed
from the property.
FUNDING OVERVIEW
As indicated, the County and/or the IDA secured a variety of grants as well as county funds
toward the development and administration of the STIP. Please note that some of the funding
obtained was utilized in economic development throughout the County, since initially the County
had an Economic Director position, held by Tim Hayes, who eventually transitioned to be the
IDA Executive Director. The information presented below is from an August 25, 2005 report
prepared by the County’s auditors, Didawick & Knopp, to verify the County’s position regarding
the Schedule of Sources and Uses of Funds (IDA and Sustainable Technology Park) and that it is
fairly stated as of the date of said report.
REVENUE
GRANT PROCEEDS
NOAA/VIRGINIA COASTAL PROGRAMS (SAMP GRANTS): $ 986,455
USDA/RURAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE GRANT: $ 500,000
US DEPT OF COMMERCE/ECONOMIC DEV. ADMIN: $ 400,000
VA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION: $ 325,000
GOVERNOR’S OPPORTUNITY FUND: $ 171,299
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: $ 441,900
EASTERN SHORE REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP: $ 26,800
TENANT IMPROVEMENT (ENERGY RECOVERY): $ 196,320
OTHER: $ 23,873
SUBTOTAL GRANT PROCEEDS $3,462,179
OPERATING REVENUE
RENTS, FORFEITED DEPOSITS, ADMIN FEES, ETC: $ 348,873
ESVA ECON DEVELOP PARTNERSHIP: $ 7,950
SUBTOTAL OPERATING REVENUE $ 356,823
SALE OF LAND: $ 48,500

43 | P a g e
INTEREST EARNINGS
1998 BOND FUND: $ 89,835
ESCROW FUND: $ 59,135
SUBTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGS $ 148,970
COUNTY CONTRIBUTIONS
GF TRANSFERS TO IDA OPERATING FUND: $ 538,260
GF LOANS TO IDA OPERATING FUND: $ 91,325
GF NET EXPR. NOT REIMB INCLUDE GRANT MATCHES: $ 975,425
GF PAYMENTS FOR IN-KIND ADMIN SERVICES: $ 226,785
GF DEBT PAYMENTS – INTEREST ONLY: $ 919,836
1998 BOND PROCEEDS, SERIES A, B & C: $2,500,000
GF COST TO DEFEASE BONDS: $ 21,680
GF PAYMENT TO VDOT FOR IND. ACCESS PROJECT: $ 19,773
SUBTOTAL COUNTY CONTRIBUTIONS $5,293,084
GRAND TOTAL REVENUE SOURCES $9,309,556
These funds were expended for planning, economic development strategy, tourism, marketing,
infrastructure, capital building construction, admin expenses, and financing expenses. I will
provide a rough breakdown by revenue category as to how these funds were
expended. Expenditures shown in italics.
GRANT PROCEEDS
NOAA/VIRGINIA COASTAL PROGRAMS (SAMP GRANTS): $ 986,455
 Program Coordination and Economic Strategy
Development and Implementation, Data and Analysis: $ 764,080
 Dune Construction, Avian Monitoring Program,
& Habitat Restoration: $ 131,775
 Public Info for STIP: $ 46,600
 Dune Design, Birding Festival: $ 34,000
 Design Charette-STIP: $ 10,000
 STIP Bldg One Incubator Improvements: $ 500,000
 STIP Phase I Infrastructure: $ 390,532

44 | P a g e
US DEPT OF COMMERCE/ECONOMIC DEV. ADMIN: $ 400,000
 STIP Phase I Infrastructure Development: $ 400,000
VA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION: $ 325,000
 New Road Development: $ 325,000
GOVERNOR’S OPPORTUNITY FUND: $ 171,299
 Construction: $ 171,299
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: $ 441,900
 Brownfields: $ 441,900
EASTERN SHORE REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP: $ 26,800
 Water Recovery & Reuse Project Study: $ 26,800
TENANT IMPROVEMENT (ENERGY RECOVERY): $ 196,320
 STIP Bldg. Solar Panel Roof: $ 196,320
OTHER: $ 23,873
SUBTOTAL GRANT EXPENDITURES: $3,462,179
OPERATING REVENUE
RENTS, FORFEITED DEPOSITS, ADMIN FEES, ETC: $ 348,873
 Operating Expenses of the STIP: $ 348,873
ESVA ECON DEVELOP PARTNERSHIP: $ 7,950
 EDC Marketing Project: $ 7,950
_____________________________________________________________________
SUBTOTAL OPERATING REVENUE $ 356,823
SALE OF LAND $ 48,500
 Other expenses $ 3,000
_____________________________________________________________________
SUBTOTAL SALE OF LAND $ 48,500
INTEREST EARNINGS

45 | P a g e
1998 BOND FUND: $ 89,835
 Additional Costs assoc. with Grants $ 82,235
 Promotional Info & Project Materials: $ 7,600
ESCROW FUND: $ 59,135
 Cost of Interest on Escrow Fund $ 59,135
_____________________________________________________________________
SUBTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGS $ 148,970
COUNTY CONTRIBUTIONS
GF TRANSFERS TO IDA OPERATING FUND: $ 538,260
GF LOANS TO IDA OPERATING FUND: $ 91,325
GF NET EXPR. NOT REIMB INCLUDE GRANT MATCHES: $ 975,425
 Grant Matches: $ 975,425
GF PAYMENTS FOR IN-KIND ADMIN SERVICES: $ 226,785
 County Admin Staff & Overhead In-kind: $ 226,785
GF DEBT PAYMENTS – INTEREST ONLY: $ 919,836
 Debt Service Interest Only: $ 919,836
1998 BOND PROCEEDS, SERIES A, B & C: $2,500,000
 Land Acquisition: $ 165,175
 Costs of Issuance: $ 38,300
 Bond Insurance Premium: $ 9,125
 Land Purchase/Construction of Park: $2,008,834
 Transfer to Capital Reserve – Walkway & Platform:$ 47,866
 Additional Costs assoc. with Grants: $ 230,700
GF COST TO DEFEASE BONDS: $ 21,680
 Defease bonds $ 21,680
GF PAYMENT TO VDOT FOR IND. ACCESS PROJECT: $ 19,773
 Repayment to VDOT for Road Project: $ 19,773
_____________________________________________________________________

46 | P a g e
SUBTOTAL COUNTY CONTRIBUTIONS $5,293,084
GRAND TOTAL EXPENDITURES: $9,309,556
In addition to the amounts listed above for revenue and expenses, there are three more items that
did not flow through the County but were associated with this project. They are:
1. VDOT – Second Roads Funds for Road Construction - $340,200
2. DCR – U.S. Fish & Wildlife Funds for Coastal Preserve Acquisition: $346,000
3. SOLAREX – VA Solar Energy Funds for Solar Panel Installation: $146,422
In regards to the bonds secured by the County, they were issued in 1998 and have a term of 20
years. The current principal amount remaining is $1,800,000. According to bond counsel, the
bonds are prepayable, effective July 15, 2008.
In regards to the grants, the DCR funds which were utilized to acquire 28.8 acres and then
dedicated as a Nature Preserve required a 25 acre easement as match for this grant. The
County/IDA did not place the identified 25 acres under easement and in fact, a portion of the
acreage (9 acres) was sold to Bayshore Concrete as well as two acres were leased long-term to
Bayshore Concrete. This is one of the issues that the County is working to resolve and will be
discussed in greater detail at the January 4, 2008 meeting.
In regards to the other grants listed, the majority of the grants have expired or the terms have
been satisfied. The only one(s) of potential concern are from the US Department of Commerce
(DOC)/Economic Development Administration (EDA) which was bundled and administered
through the USDA/Rural Development grants. These agencies were placed on notice of the
proposed sale but they have not responded to indicate an outstanding claim or obligation by the
County.
PROPOSED SALE OVERVIEW
On August 22, 2007, the County entered into a Purchase Agreement with Sugar Run, LLC for
the purpose of selling two parcels: Parcel 90-A-1A (80.658 acres) and Parcel 90-8-1A1 (39.712
acres) as well as transferring all interest and rights in all leases, including the leased parcels from
the Town of Cape Charles and the tenant lease.
The purchase price is $3,331,860. This is composed of $2,094,660 for 116.37 acres at a rate of
$18,000 per acre and $1,237,200 for the building and the four acres associated with the building
(based upon an agreed upon square footage of the building of 30,930 sq. ft. x $40 per square
foot). [The purchase price was derived after the County and Sugar Run, LLC each obtained
independent appraisals and negotiated the differences between the appraisals.]

47 | P a g e
Under the Purchase Agreement, there are three key deadlines.
1. Title & Title Objections: The Buyer would undertake a title examination and would need
to furnish to the County any title objections no later than sixty days from the date of the
agreement. Any objections not provided by this deadline would be waived by the
buyer. An extension of ten days was provided to the buyer.
2. Due Diligence Period: The Buyer would undertake a due diligence of the property; if at
the close of the due diligence period (90 days from date of the agreement), the Buyer has the
ability to terminate the Agreement if the results of the due diligence are unsatisfactory (excluding
title issues which are dictated by the process under Item 1 above).
3. Removal of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions by January 15, 2008 & Closing
Date of January 15, 2008.
Under the Agreement, a deposit of $200,000 was provided by the Buyer and will be
applied to the amount due of the purchase price at closing. Additionally, the County is to
have obtained an easement or right-of-way adequate for providing public pedestrian and
vehicular ingress and egress to the Nature Preserve Parcel which, if such easement or
right-of-way crosses the Park, is mutually satisfactory to Buyer and Seller. This
particular section of the Agreement will be discussed in greater detail at the January 4,
2008 meeting.
OTHER
In the transfer of the STIP from the IDA to the County, paperwork was provided to the County
alluding to a water and sewer agreement between the IDA, Baymark Construction (Mr. Foster’s
company – Bay Creek), and the Town of Cape Charles and an agreement between the IDA and
Baymark Construction. However, none of these agreements were executed by the various parties
nor could final approval/acceptance of the terms of these agreements relative to water/sewer
infrastructure work be located in the minutes of the IDA meetings. Mr. Foster has provided a
letter to the County indicating that he is owed $330,000+. He has not been able to provide any
documentation supporting this claim.

48 | P a g e
References
1921 Tulsa Race Riot. (2015). Retrieved from the Tulsa Historical Society & Museum website:
http://tulsahistory.org/learn/online-exhibits/the-tulsa-race-riot/
About the District. (n.d.). Retrieved from the Brady Arts District website:
http://thebradyartsdistrict.com/?q=about-the-district
Alberini, A., Longo, A., Tonin, S., Trombetta, F., & Turvani, M. (2005). The role of liability,
regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and redevelopment:
Evidence from surveys of developers. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35(4),
327-351.
Alumnae Valley. (2014). Retrieved November 8, 2015, from http://www.cclr.org/alumnae-valley
Basic Information. (2012, July 16). Retrieved October 1, 2015, from
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/basic_info.htm
Brownfields 2010 Assessment and Revolving Loan Fund Grant Fact Sheet Grand Rapids, MI.
(2010). Retrieved October 2015, from
http://cfpub.epa.gov/bf_factsheets/gfs/index.cfm?xpg_id=7233&display_type=HTML
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot. (2000, December 1). Retrieved October 28, 2015,
from http://nepis.epa.gov
Brownfields and Land Revitalization. (2014, October 22.). Retrieved December 1, 2014,
from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/index.html
Brownfield Overview and Definition. (2015, October 21). Retrieved October 1, 2015, from
http://www2.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfield-overview-and-definition
Building. (2015). Retrieved October 2015, from http://downtownmarketgr.com/green/building
Cape Charles Natural Area Preserve. (2015, September 24). Retrieved November 10, 2015, from
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-area-preserves/capecharles
Derelict. 2011. In Merriam-Webster.com.
Retrieved December 4, 2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derelict
Dharma Rain Zen Center. (2015). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from
http://dharma-rain.org/
Energy. (2015). Retrieved October 2015, from http://downtownmarketgr.com/green/energy
From Brownfield to Greenfield. (2013). Retrieved November 8, 2015, from
http://www.asla.org/sustainablelandscapes/brownfield.html
Gallivan, J. (2014, March 13). The Portland area's guide to green living [Newsgroup post].

TeamC_FinalReport

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to TeamC_FinalReport

Similar to TeamC_FinalReport (20)

TeamC_FinalReport