Orchards & Pesticides: Solvable Problems

You’d be amazed just what percent of the Bay Area and greater Sacramento Area was formerly developed with orchards. What is particularly worrisome is that during this period of orchard development it was commonplace for farmers to utilize chlorinated pesticides for fruit protection. Not all sites are impaired, but it is important to know as much as you can about your site.

Although many of the compounds formerly used have since been banned, their residual concentrations still reside in the upper layers of the soil profile. And although it is true that these compounds are likely decreasing in concentration over time, due mostly to natural attenuation and chemical processes, it is also true that the concentrations that remain can be truly hazardous to current and future occupants. Though everyone has heard of DDT, there are also dieldrin, aldrin, and a whole host of more toxic compounds that have been used. You can't see this kind of contamination, only sampling of the soil can provide real world data for review.

If a site that was formerly orchards is being redeveloped for residential use, it is important to collect near surface soil samples to assess for the potential of residual pesticide contamination. We have found sites where –even though the site hasn’t been an orchard since the mid-1970s—the concentrations in the near surface soils exceed hazardous waste threshold criteria! The clean up of these compounds, which are primarily chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, arsenic, lead, and mercury, is usually off-hauling of contaminated materials and backfilling with imported soils. This is an easy and effective method of ensuring that future occupants are protected from historic uses. Most of these compounds affect children disproportionately more than their adult counterparts.

Not every site requires remediation, but knowing what is present either prior to purchase of the site, prior to redevelopment of the site, or prior to re-use of the site, is critical. Only on-site sampling and a trained consultant can guide what should be done. In most instances site conditions are OK, and even in these cases the results of sampling bring peace of mind.

Everyone involved in a transaction involving historic orchards has a stake in ensuring that future use of the site occurs alongside a responsibility to protect those future occupants.

Practical Redevelopment

For many cities redevelopment of downtown or other urban areas is a challenge. Although the challenge seems large, there are practical approaches to starting the redevelopment train, including funding for assessment and cleanup of contaminated sites.

Every city wants to show off their revitalization -- for many it's an imperative aspect to staying competitive in our modern world. Developers who are eager to work with cities many times run into contamination troubles (or a perception of such troubles) and back out. Who can blame them? But it leaves the City in a tight position with few options for moving forward. Redevelopment is costly in and of itself, without the added concerns of environmental contamination.

What many cities do not understand is that there is ample funding for just these types of sites. Although there is no clear definition of a Brownfield, a simple definition is a site, whose development is being impeded by potential or actual contamination. We've all seen these sites throughout our cities -- the old gas stations, the old mills and factories, and even the vacant lot that nobody remembers what it used to be.

The US EPA offers assessment and cleanup grants (usually up to a total of $400,000 per applicant). These dollars are obtained through a proposal process that starts soon (due date is mid October 2007). Skilled environmental consultants can write the proposal (which is limited to 18 pages), and really good consultants understanding the ranking criteria used by the EPA. Many cities in our own area have received these grants, including the City of West Sacramento, Emeryville, Oakland, and many others.

These dollars are a great start to cleaning up sites that have been impacted or may be impacted by hazardous materials or petroleum products. Plus, these grants can be combined with other monies/services available through the US EPA (via the Target Brownfields Assessment program), the DTSC (via the Targeted Site Investigation program), as well as the State Water Board (via the LUFT Fund and the OSCA). It has been reported that nearly half of all Region IX applicants for Brownfield grants are successful.

Every city has environmentally impaired sites that are sitting idly by because the cost to assess and remediate these sites scares off developers and city planners alike. Please take the time to think about how federal and state grants can help your redevelopment plan as well as contribute to an overall environmental protection policy. Someone is going to get these dollars, why shouldn't it be you?

Consulting Culture

As we try to improve our business, I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the environmental services business from the viewpoint of the client. If any clients of environmental services are out there who want to respond (because after all you know better than I) please do so by emailing me or posting something to this site.

Environmental consulting firms come in all sorts of corporate cultures. But mostly they are spawned from an engineering or earth science firm. It is difficult for these types of firms to be creative. Oh you will see that they consider themselves creative from the verbage on their websites, but reality is different. So here are some things to watch for. Chargeable hours are very important, especially in larger firms. If you have a larger project billed on a monthly basis, you will note that you have hours charged by principals and seniors that you do not remember speaking with or who contributed to your project. Any open project is fair game within the office to meet chargeability quotas.

Chargeability is also important for lower level employees (as a matter of fact most firms require staff-level employees to be at least 90 percent billable). So if you call to find information for your project from someone who is not otherwise busy, you will find a half hour charged for a five minute phone call. The bottom line on this activity is that the client needs to feel comfortable with the honesty and integrity of the consultant. The activities listed here are not necessarily considered by the consultant to be dishonest. They are just a part of their culture. There are firms with fresh and vibrant cultures where you will be treated honestly. Talk to your consultant before you sign any agreement, feel comfortable with the people who are going to do your work before you even ask for a proposal.

More next time.

OSCA: Money for assessment prior to purchase

The Orphan Site Cleanup Account (OSCA) is a unique funding mechanism for LUST sites that are without financially viable RPs.

In fact, a key provision of the OSCA is that, where the site is otherwise eligible for reimbursement, the applicant need not already own the Property. That’s right, you don’t have to own the Property to get paid for the assessment of the site.

Here’s how that works: First an applicant (be it a developer, investor, or other) finds a LUST site that has not yet been adequately assessed and does not have a financially viable RP. Then, the applicant enters into a purchase agreement for the site, contingent upon the remediation costs being estimated within the cap of the OSCA. Once the agreement is in place, the applicant can get funds from the OSCA to do the assessment work on the site, which will allow the consultant to posit the anticipated remediation costs (with a margin of error). If the costs fall reasonably within the remaining OSCA funding limit, then the purchase moves forward. If not, the applicant walks away.

The beauty is that the applicant isn’t out of pocket for assessment expenses and has the potential to pick up a site that has a depressed price (due to the environmental contamination). The OSCA will pay for the remediation (up to their $1.5 million cap per site for assessment + remediation) once the applicant becomes the owner in fee.

It sounds like a scam, but it’s not. The OSCA represents the State of California, who has an interest in seeing orphan sites cleaned up. Such efforts protect groundwater resources and inevitably lead to economic development (through the eventual redevelopment of the site). In this sense all parties to the transaction win.