[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
E-M:/ MDEQ revises Clean Michigan Program
- Subject: E-M:/ MDEQ revises Clean Michigan Program
- From: "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 10:20:09 -0500
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- List-Name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-To: "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Enviro-Mich message from "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <email@example.com>
REVISED CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING AND RECOMMENDING CLEAN MICHIGAN INITIATIVE
PROJECTS FOR FUNDING
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE DIVISION
REVISED CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING AND RECOMMENDING CLEAN MICHIGAN INITIATIVE
PROJECTS FOR FUNDING UNDER SECTION 19608(1)(A), OF PART 196, CLEAN MICHIGAN
INITIATIVE IMPLEMENTATION, OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ACT, 1994 PA 451, AS AMENDED (NREPA)
In November 1998, voters approved the Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI). This
initiative authorized the sale of $675 million in tax-exempt bonds for
various public health, environmental protection, and recreation purposes.
In July 1998, the Legislature passed implementing legislation for the CMI,
1998 PA 288, which set forth how the $675 million would be allocated if
approved by the voters. This law indicates that $335 million of the $675
million will be used for:
1. Response actions at contaminated properties to promote redevelopment.
2. Response actions at contaminated properties to address public
health and environmental problems.
3. Assessment activities to determine if a property is contaminated.
4. Grants and loans to local units of government for environmental
response activities at properties with redevelopment potential.
5. Grants to local units of government which owned or operated a
municipal solid waste landfill on, or nominated for, the federal Superfund
National Priorities List.
Section 19608(7) of the NREPA states that before submitting the first cycle
of projects under these categories to the Legislature for funding, the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) shall publish and
disseminate the criteria it will use in evaluating and recommending these
projects for funding. The original criteria were published on March 1,
1999, and again on August 30, 1999. Based on the DEQ's experience to date,
it determined that the criteria could likely be improved. As part of the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 site nomination process, every county, city, village,
and township was asked to review the existing criteria and to suggest
improvements. Suggestions were also solicited from the Michigan Economic
Development Corporation (MEDC) and a real estate firm on contract with
them. These revised criteria are the result of the input received from this
The following criteria are being published to fulfill the previously
described statutory requirement. The criteria will be effective on the date
A. Projects Undertaken Pursuant to Part 213, Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks, and Part 201, Environmental Remediation, of NREPA to Promote
* Redevelopment and Job Creation/Investment Potential:
Sites will be evaluated on their likelihood to be redeveloped, including
the potential to create jobs, the nature of the jobs likely to be created,
and the amount of private investment likely to occur once remediation is
complete. Ten primary factors will be used to evaluate these criteria:
1. Property Location - Is the site near a market center, near suppliers, in
an area with an adequate work force?
2. Access/Exposure - Is the site visible from or have access to an
interchange, highway, or major road?
3. Zoning - Is the zoning classification of the property industrial,
commercial, or residential? Industrially zoned property will generally be
ranked higher than commercially zoned property because industrial jobs are
usually higher paying, and commercially zoned property will generally be
ranked higher than residential because residential development usually does
not create permanent jobs. Is the municipality willing to change the zoning
to make the site more attractive to redevelopment?
4. Size of the Parcel - Larger sites will generally be viewed more
favorably than smaller sites because they tend to allow for greater
redevelopment flexibility and are capable of accommodating more investment.
5. Utilities - Are all utilities readily available at the site, including
water, sewer, natural gas, electric, and fiber optics?
6. Improvements - Will any existing structures remain that will add value
and market desirability in the redevelopment process?
7. Other Amenities - Does the site have rail service or a natural
characteristic that may create a higher potential for redevelopment; i.e.,
8. Marketable Title - Could the site be sold to a new user/developer
without clouds on the title? Does the site have easements, encroachments,
restrictions, or covenants that would interfere with its redevelopment?
9. Adjoining Uses - Are the site's surrounding uses compatible with the
most likely redevelopment? Are surrounding uses compatible from a zoning
10. Economic Data - Is the site contained within a current renaissance zone
or is the municipal tax structure favorable for redevelopment? Is the
municipality prepared to offer any incentive to redevelop the site?
* Cost of Response Activity:
The estimated cost to complete the response activities necessary to
facilitate redevelopment will be evaluated in relation to the job creation
and private investment likely to occur on the site. Sites with favorable
cost-benefit ratios will generally be given preference over sites with
lower cost-benefit ratios.
* Ability to Implement:
The DEQ's goal is to generally only request funds for response actions
which can be completed within 18 months of receiving an appropriation from
the Legislature. Therefore, initially sites owned by the state of Michigan
or a local unit of government will be given a higher priority than
privately owned sites. Privately owned sites often have access and
liability issues that must be resolved before work can commence. Once these
issues have been thoroughly evaluated and resolved, a privately owned site
will receive the same consideration as a publicly owned site.
* Geographic Distribution of Projects:
The DEQ will strive to assure all areas of the state benefit from the
program. Cost-benefit and redevelopment potential, however, will be the
controlling factors in site selection. Sites will not be selected or funds
allocated exclusively on the basis of population density or geographic
* Community Priority:
Many communities have recommended sites to the DEQ for CMI funding to
conduct response actions necessary to facilitate redevelopment. Significant
consideration will be given to the sites recommended by communities, and if
multiple sites were recommended, to the priority assigned by the community.
B. Projects to Address Public Health and Environmental Problems
The nature and extent of the human health problem, the nature and extent of
the environmental problem, and response cost vs. expected benefit will be
evaluated. Response actions and funding priorities will be based on the
degree of risk reduction that can be accomplished by a project. Projects
that provide greater risk reduction per dollar expended will have higher
priority. All unacceptable contamination-related exposures at a site will
not necessarily be remediated. The goals of this programmatic element will
be: (1) accomplish the greatest amount of public health and environmental
benefit with each dollar expended; and (2) assure if response actions are
terminated at a site short of completing a comprehensive remedy, the
environmental and public health benefits derived from the response actions
taken will not be lost.
Sites with extremely high response activity costs may be nominated to the
federal Superfund program for action to optimize the benefit of available
C. Assessments to Determine if Property is Contaminated
Three types of assessments will be recommended for funding. The first is an
assessment where the presence of a release would pose a serious threat to
public health (i.e., a suspected release on property in a municipal
wellhead protection area). The second is an evaluation of a suspected
release which could impact an important, sensitive natural resource (i.e.,
a suspected toxicant release in close proximity to a high-quality trout
stream). The third is an assessment to facilitate a significant
D. Grants and Loans
Grants for response actions at contaminated properties with redevelopment
potential will be evaluated and issued using the same criteria currently
being used for site reclamation and site assessment grants under the 1988
Environmental Bond program with the addition that demolition of a dangerous
or functionally obsolete structure that impedes redevelopment may be
considered an eligible activity.
E. Municipal Landfill Cost-Share Grants
The CMI funds for this purpose will be allocated using the criteria
established under Section 20109a of the NREPA and policies adopted by the
Brownfield Redevelopment Board.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) will not
discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,
religion, age, national origin, color, marital status, disability, or
political beliefs. Questions or concerns should be directed to the MDEQ
Office of Personnel Services, PO Box 30473, Lansing, MI 48909.
Ruth N. Hartwig
Environmental Assistance Division
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
PO Box 30457
Lansing, MI 48909-7957
Alex J. Sagady & Associates http://my.voyager.net/~ajs/sagady.pdf
Environmental Enforcement, Technical Review, Public Policy and
Communications on Air, Water and Waste/Community Environmental Protection
PO Box 39, East Lansing, MI 48826-0039
(517) 332-6971; (517) 332-8987 (fax); firstname.lastname@example.org
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
Postings to: email@example.com For info, send email to
firstname.lastname@example.org with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"