A GIS-BASED DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM

FOR BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT

Michael R. Thomas, Ph.D.

Department of Resource Development
323 Natural Resources
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
(517) 353-9796 (voice); -8994 (fax)
thoma180@msu.edu

ABSTRACT
Rapid growth in regions surrounding large metropolitan areas leads to the phenomenon of urban
sprawl. In states like Michigan, land is being converted at a rate seven times greater than formerly
used (and potentially contaminated) sites are being redeveloped. City governments now see these
unused or abandoned areas as important assets in realizing the goal of urban revitalization. New
legislation in Michigan provides economic (e.g., tax recapture) and legal (e.g., suspension of
retroactive liability) incentives for local governments and prospective developers who are now
seeking these brownfields instead of farmland and open space.
To evaluate land use options with respect to brownfields inventory, characterization, and potential
for redevelopment, both government and private decision-makers need access to information
regarding land capability; development incentives; public goals, interests, and preferences; and
environmental concerns such as site contamination and environmental quality. This paper discusses
a decision support system that provides access to state, regional, and local geospatial databases,
several informational and visualization tools, and assumptions useful in providing a better
understanding of issues, options, and alternatives in redeveloping brownfields.
The resultant decision support system is augmented by a unique GIS-based land use modeling
application called Smart Places as an integrated expert system. The decision support system is
being tested in a city- and county-level brownfield identification, screening, and marketing effort in
Jackson County, Michigan. This project represents a testbed for decision makers and policy analysts
at all levels of government to establish urban land use policy and development guidelines that may
be applicable to related land use issues in a variety of urban and urbanizing settings. While this
project was conducted in Michigan, the tools and procedures used are seen as readily adaptable to
other locations.
KEYWORDS: BROWNFIELDS, GIS, DECISION SUPPORT, INFORMATION SYSTEMS, SITING

INTRODUCTION
Over the past several years, the value of redeveloping brownfields as a potential panacea to
urban sprawl has become anecdotal. Popular media at national, regional, and local levels report
redevelopment success stories almost on a weekly basis. Brownfield redevelopment is now seen
as a sustainable land use strategy.

1
Brownfields are defined as abandoned, idle, or under-used industrial and commercial properties
where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). Brownfields represent a
lucrative, but largely untapped, land resource (Davis and Margolis, 1997; Kirstenberg, 1997;
Dennison, 1998; Rafson and Rafson, 1999). The term “land recycling” has gained favor among
land use planners, whereas economic development practitioners seek to “turn brownfields into
goldfields” (Fleming, et al., 2000). In a recent survey of 150 cities nationwide conducted by the
U.S. Conference of Mayors (1998), two-thirds of the cities responding to the survey estimate
that redevelopment of known brownfields could bring from $205 to $500 million in additional
tax revenues and add as many as 236,000 jobs to local economies.
Estimates suggest that there are over 430,000 brownfields nationwide (Simons, 1998) and from
14,000 to as many as 45,000 sites in Michigan (Consumers Renaissance Development
Corporation, 1998). Until recently, these sites were overlooked by developers in favor of
greenfields due to high costs to clean properties and upgrade infrastructure, liability concerns,
market conditions, and local resistance (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998; Consumers
Renaissance Development Corporation, 1999). Under state and federal programs like Superfund,
past efforts to clean up these sites and attract new development, jobs, and tax recovery have
largely been unsuccessful. Because of these uncertainties and the lack of timely information and
financial incentives, the identification and selection of brownfields for redevelopment can be a
risky business.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of this project was to build a prototype brownfield decision support system that can
be applied statewide in making siting decisions. Such a system would take advantage of cutting-
edge information technologies for data access and analysis, in particular, visualization
techniques employed by geographic information systems (GIS). However, the system must be
accessible and affordable to local units of government and developers. The resultant prototype
system takes advantage of existing state, regional, and local geospatial databases; web-based
tools that inventory brownfield sites; geographic information system (GIS)-based visualization
models and decision criteria; and extensive public interaction, training, and outreach. This
information system is then demonstrated using an innovative resource-modeling application
called Smart Places.
Like many states, land in Michigan is being converted to urban use at an alarming rate. In a
recent comparison between Michigan and the rest of the U.S., the amount of land used per
person was 3 percent nationally versus 13 percent in Michigan (Rusk, 1998). According to this
study, urbanized land in the U.S. has grown six times faster than urban population while most
central cities are steadily being abandoned. It is estimated that between 1.4 and 2 million acres of
land are projected to be converted to urban development between 1990 and 2010 (Michigan
Society of Planning Officials, 1995).
In response, the Office of the Governor of Michigan directed state agencies to seek ways of
dealing with uncontrolled growth that would provide incentives to local communities to work
together on land use and environmental quality issues that crossed jurisdictional boundaries. One
of the land use issues targeted by these agencies was formerly used and potentially contaminated

2
industrial and commercial sites typically located in inner-city areas. There were many
impediments to fulfilling this objective. Michigan is a strong home-rule state, and the vast
majority of land use decisions are made at the local level. Moreover, there were few
incentives—financial, legal, social, or environmental—to develop brownfields within urban
environments. Even with incentives, it was often far easier for developers to purchase farmlands
and open space one more mile down the road than to acquire formerly used properties.
Many of the barriers to brownfields redevelopment are being challenged through changes in
Michigan policy and environmental regulations. Public Acts 381 (Brownfields Redevelopment
Financing Act) and 382 (Single Business Tax Credit, As Amended) of 1996 work in concert
with Part 201 of Public Act 451 of 1994 (Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Act) to stimulate redevelopment. Resultant state-supported programs have begun to
provide incentives toward realizing the goal of urban revitalization instead of rapid conversion
of farmland and open space. Michigan provides both economic (e.g., tax recapture and
reimbursement of some cleanup costs) and legal (e.g., suspension of retroactive liability)
incentives for local governments and prospective developers to seek brownfields. New funding
under the Clean Michigan Initiative is also providing significant funding to support these
activities..
Unless new approaches to addressing land-use issues can work within this framework for
decision making, any relief from sprawl and its associated social, economic, and environmental
problems is likely to fail. Innovative approaches that can interest and engage multiple
stakeholder groups, while at the same time accommodating private property constraints, would
be beneficial in Michigan and applicable elsewhere.
For these programs to be successful in the long run, two factors must come into play. First,
government and private decision-makers need more information regarding land capability;
development incentives; public goals, interests, and preferences. Second, the information system
must be able to address environmental concerns such as site contamination, public health, and
environmental quality to (1) evaluate land use options, (2) shorten the time needed to make
decisions, and (3) attract federal, state, and private capital to prioritize, revitalize, and sustain
development in an urban environment. The ultimate goal is to make brownfield sites competitive
with undeveloped sites and return these areas to productive uses, stimulating local economic
growth by getting these properties back on the tax rolls, providing new jobs, and attracting other
businesses to the vicinity.

STUDY AREA
The study area used in this project was Jackson County Brownfield Redevelopment Zone, which
includes 19 townships in Jackson County, Michigan. The Jackson study area represents an ideal
location for testing the brownfield decision support system. Jackson County is located in south
central Michigan at the juncture of Interstate 94 and US-127. The I-94 corridor is the main
connection between Chicago and Detroit. Although it is geographically isolated from other
major population centers in Michigan, it is being influenced by expansion from Washtenaw
County to the east, Ingham County to the north, and Kalamazoo-Battle Creek to the west. After a
period of decline in the 1970s and 1980s, the region is experiencing a rapid rate of economic and
population growth.

3
The Jackson County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (BRA) inventoried candidate sites
under the USEPA funded Pilot Program and Community Partnership Grant. This program
provides up to $200,000 for two years to test redevelopment models, direct special efforts
toward removing regulatory barriers without sacrificing environmental protection, and facilitate
community-based and coordinated input (Weiss, 1997). Since many of the brownfield sites are
located within the boundary of the City of Jackson, the County and City BRAs established a
collaborative relationship.

METHODS
The use of decision support systems in the business world is well established (Sauter, 1997). The
application of such methods to land use in general and brownfields in particular is relatively
new. According to Sauter, decision support systems, by definition, should aid in and strengthen
the process of choice. For the DSS to be effective, designers must understand the human choice
process as well as the needs of the user for information, the abilities of the user to process and
understand that information, and the ultimate endpoint of how and why the information will be
used. The integration of expert system technologies (e.g., models, visualization tools, etc.) as
components of a decision support system is seen as a means of realizing the goal of providing
additional support to decision makers.
To be effective, a land use decision support system must provide access to data, the tools or
mechanisms to transform data into useful information, and the context from which
understanding is derived (Worrest, et al., 1994). For example, geographic information systems
have been readily adopted by users seeking to learn more about the physical world through the
ability of computers to transform huge databases into thematic maps. With the addition of GIS-
based models and other analytical tools, decision makers can begin to manipulate data in a true
planning environment (Faber, et al., 1997; Thomas 1994, 1993; Thomas and Roller, 1993).
We worked with selected local units of government (cities, counties, and townships), community
and business leaders, and members of the public. This effort was used to (1) determine multi-
stakeholder goals for site redevelopment; (2) identify and locate databases held by existing
subcontractors; (3) determine a set of environmental indicators to quantify relevant factors and
measure project success; and (4) identify specific brownfields sites to demonstrate the decision
support application. The team then incorporated project scenario assessment models and
indicators into a GIS-based expert system called Smart Places to evaluate project objectives,
compare siting alternatives, and assess the effects of a proposed redevelopment project.

Information Needs Analysis

To determine information needed to address brownfield redevelopment, the research team
reviewed the literature pertinent to urban land use and land renewal issues. General information
needs were obtained from national clearinghouses (e.g., Redefining Progress Website
(www.rprogress.org/) and RP-CINET list serve; USEPA’s Brownfield Pilot Project summary
reports at www.epa.gov.brownfields/) and sustainable communities initiatives ((e.g., Sustainable
Seattle, 1992; Olympia Sustainable City Program, 1991; and many others), which included
aspects of land use planning and management , environmental quality, site restoration and
remediation, and community education and involvement. Of particular note was the GIS-based

4
computer model developed by Emeryville, California. Known as the “One-Stop Shop,” it
provides provides information on soil and groundwater contamination, assessment findings,
planning issues, land use/zoning concerns, and property ownership to potential purchasers and
developers. This entire database was made available over the Internet, at
www.best.com/~rda/oss.htm.
We reviewed regional information at the Regional Online Brownfield Information Network
ROBIN; www.glc.org/robin/). To determine the extent that regional or local needs influence site
development, the analysis included a qualitative mail survey of developers actively working with
brownfield sites or interested in working on such sites in the future. Based on this survey, critical
information needs included (a) the size and location of available sites, (b) infrastructure support
services, (c) available financial support, and (d) size of customer base.
In nearly all instances, the end use is the primary consideration, along with economic and
environmental concerns (Simons, 1998; Davis and Margolis, 1997; Moyer and Tremarche,
1997). Information requirements for proposed end uses of brownfields have been outlined by
Devine (1996). These include (a) an accurate inventory of available sites; (b) environmental
compliance status, history of incidents, and any enforcement actions; (c) transportation access;
(d) presence of linked industries; (e) availability of development incentives; and (f) labor pool
characteristics. While Buchanan (1997) suggests that, in a choice between brownfields and
greenfields, the fear of liability of contamination as the most critical factor, Greenwald (1996)
lists skill level and cost of labor, proximity to customers, and price of real estate as the principal
determining factors. Greenwald also discounts the influence of tax incentives, claiming that
communities in their rush to attract business often trade certain services (e.g., education and job
training) that may be more essential to sustaining a good business environment.
This search resulted in (1) a set of questions that could be asked by a prospective developer and
community decision maker, (2) a set of indicators and metrics — how the success of sustainable
development objectives can be measured and quantified, and (3) a list of information
requirements to address these questions. An initial set of siting indicators or criteria was
prepared for each of four possible end points: industrial, commercial, residential, and open space
(Table 1).
Working Database Development
A regional-level database was compiled for Jackson County in cooperation with the county
Planning and Equalization Department and Region 2 Planning Commission. The principal
sources for these databases are government derived (e.g., Michigan Resource Information
System, U.S. Bureau of Census, U.S. Geological Service, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, etc.). Agreements were made with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
to obtain site-specific data on contaminant levels and locations. Data were also collected in the
local area from Consumers Energy Company and the Jackson Public Works Department.
In general, site-specific data requirements include physical data (e.g., current and surrounding
land cover, surface and subsurface geology and geohydrology, soils, etc.); land use
characteristics (e.g., energy, water, and sewer characteristics; transportation and
telecommunication; ownership and property values; zoning and master plans); and demographic
and socioeconomic data by neighborhood and block group. Location of contaminants and

5
remediation plans (i.e., results of Basic Environmental Assessment, Phase 1/2, or RI/FS) were
used when available. These information requirements were incorporated in Table 1.
Site Selection Criteria Development
Site selection criteria were developed as a mechanism to get site- and region-specific
information to the developer and community decision-maker. We used a series of facilitated
workshops sponsored by the county BRA and attended by representatives of local units of
government in Jackson County. Participants felt that a systematic approach would be helpful in
identifying sites that fit the developer’s requirements, and will also be instrumental in facilitating
the process of permit application, financing, and site engineering. Participants agreed that site
screening criteria needed to reflect several factors. First, they should consider factors that are
generally used in the art and science of locating commercial real estate. Second, the criteria must
incorporate local conditions such as infrastructure, site characteristics, and financial incentives.
Third, the criteria must take into account local restrictions including zoning ordinances, master
plans, and community acceptance.
The resultant criteria are presented in Table 2 in decreasing order of relative importance.
Relative importance (assigned weights using an ordinal scale) is suggested by point values
assigned to each category heading. Several iterations were required to establish point totals. The
values in the figure reflect the relative importance to each criterion to the study area. The highest
cumulative point value was 218. Participants determined that industrial sites should fall within
an optimal value range of 120 to 220, commercial sites between 140 and 200, residential sites
between 90 and 120, and agricultural/open space between 70 and 120. The rest of the ranges are
shown on Table 2.
As might be expected, applications of this method in other locations would most likely result in
a different point total. The table also indicates which criteria are evaluated at the local level and
which are more appropriately evaluated at the county level. Once the criteria categories were
established, various sub-criteria or screening factors were identified and ranked within headings.
As each site is evaluated, it is then added to the Smart Places scenario for each township.
GIS Toolset Implementation
A basic decision support toolset was assembled and configured for the county. This consisted of
a laptop computer running Windows, ArcView, and Smart Places software. The toolset
includes site attributes for the inventoried brownfields study areas and selected brownfields site
characterization and environmental, social, and economic development indicators (see Table 1).
Regional and parcel data were incorporated into ArcView as they were compiled for each
township. Smart Places scenarios were used to compile the data, integrate siting objectives and
constraints, and assess impacts of various land-use options. All sample scenarios used in this
paper are from Blackman Charter Township. Information about individual contaminated sites
was compared between the MDEQ database and the compiled listing of brownfield sites in the
Michigan Site Network (http://www.misitenet.com/). The County BRA provided results from
the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (American Society of Testing and Materials
Standard E1527-97, as amended), along with information on siting requirements.

6
Although we investigated several GIS-based expert systems available on the market, the goal of
this project was not to compare competing software. We simply selected Smart Places because
it is inexpensive and readily available, adaptable to many applications, and has an established
track record as an extremely powerful decision support tool. Smart Places allows nontechnical
users to interactively review land use scenarios, sketch recommended changes, and evaluate
these recommendations against local or regional objectives and constraints. Such applications
can support land use decision-makers in comparing the impacts, benefits, and risks of alternative
land use options or scenarios. As such, it is a tool worth considering in a spatial decision support
system. Additional information regarding system requirements and capabilities can be found on-
line at (www.epri.com).
Using the Smart Places Model, editable land use themes (e.g., residential, commercial,
industrial, parks and open space, transportation corridors, etc.), analysis categories, and specific
measurement and comparison criteria were established. The land use alternatives reflect
categories identified in the township master plan (Blackman Charter Township, 1995). Analysis
categories and comparison criteria are based on several factors:
• Legal restrictions, zoning ordinances, environmental regulatory requirements;
• Physical restrictions (e.g., presence of wetlands, floodplains, unstable slopes, etc.);
• Models (e.g., ground water transport or air dispersion);
• Community desires, including master plans and community surveys (e.g., Jackson
CommUnity Transformation, 1996);
• Brownfield site selection and weighting factors; and
• Professional judgment.

APPLICATION AND RESULTS: Modeling the Site Selection Process in Smart Places
To illustrate the process by which site information is compiled in a decision support system and
alternative site development options may be evaluated, an example scenario is shown in Figures
1 through 3. Figure 1 is a representation of a proposed industrial development (Figure 1, arrow)
using Smart Places and the site selection criteria described in Table 2.
First, the basic data layers, indicators, and measurement assumptions (described above and listed
in Table 1) are built in ArcView and Smart Places. The township master plan and the zoning
ordinance identified preferred uses for the site regarding type, size, and distribution along with
requisite setbacks, minimum square footage, and so on. The options of light and heavy industrial
and general and office building commercial uses reflected community preferences for proposed
land uses. The site is located on land that is currently zoned industrial (hatched tones); adjacent
areas are zoned commercial (darker tones). From the MDEQ contaminated sites database, we
learned that the site was previously used for the manufacturing of electronic equipment and
components. The site is contaminated with PCE, TCE, benzene, and lead. In addition, there are
several physical site limitations, including the presence of poor soils, adjacent municipal water
supply wells, and wetlands that may affect use of the site without re-engineering and a wetland
permit issued by the state.
This site was ranked relatively high (96 of a possible 118 points) by the township planning
department and was nominated to the County BRA for redevelopment incentives (the BRA
scored the site as favorable for development, 75 of a possible 100 points). The combined score

7
was 171, which placed the site high on the list for potential industrial redevelopment. Based on
the results of this evaluation, sites with a relatively high local score are most likely to be
nominated for consideration for either industrial or commercial redevelopment. Local decision
makers preferred not to recommend brownfields for residential use and hesitant to recommend
them as open space. Sites that did not have industrial or commercial potential were unlikely to
score high at the county level.
In the next phase of the siting process, restrictions to the proposed development, including
physical limitations, engineering requirements, economics, and so forth. These were evaluated as
shown in Figure 2, along with building size; number of employees; water and sewer; heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning; road access and parking; and other design criteria. Based on an
evaluation of similar proposals and an assessment of environmental effects, a preliminary
analysis can then be provided to the developer and to municipal decision-makers. Figure 3
illustrates how several of the selected indicators (e.g., water and energy demand, local power
plant emissions, vehicle miles traveled, etc.) can be incorporated in a decision process. This
information can then be used to provide specific siting recommendations that would be evaluated
against local or regional objectives and constraints as specified in a master plan or zoning
ordinance.
Using this method, over 90 individual brownfields in Jackson County were identified,
characterized (including a number of Phase 1 environmental site assessments), and ranked for
redevelopment. Alternative site plans are tracked in the Smart Places GIS. To date,
approximately 10 percent of these sites have active projects in some phase of redevelopment
ranging from remediation to reconstruction.

DISCUSSION AND LESSONS LEARNED

A geospatial, or land use, decision support system consists of three components: (1) an access
mechanism to data and information, (2) appropriate tools and technologies to organize and
analyze the data, and (3) training and outreach support for interpretation and implementation of
results of the analysis (Worrest, et al., 1994). Results of this investigation focus on the ability of
the resultant decision support system to deliver each of these component parts to the end user.
Based on the lessons learned, the following observations can be made:
• User needs analysis is crucial in decisions regarding land use change. The most time-
consuming aspect of decision support system development is determining information
requirements; establishing programmatic end points, including indicators, metrics, and
analytical assumptions; and assembling a sufficient database. This requires extensive user
needs analysis — both active and passive. Active user needs analysis in land use planning
and management consists of direct interaction with stakeholder groups in different venues
including interviews, public meetings, and surveys. Passive analysis consists primarily of
literature review (review of similar programs or materials collected on test programs but not
by project staff). A successful land use decision support system needs to include elements of
both types of analysis, plus continual training and outreach.
• Providing detailed, timely, and accurate information remains a major hurdle in brownfield
decision making. For the database to be helpful in an actual siting decision, site-specific data
must be obtained, and at the level of detail necessary to differentiate one site from another

8
 (or to choose the most appropriate land use from a suite of alternatives) and to provide
supporting documentation to meet any engineering, environmental, regulatory, and financial
requirements. Such a database is likely to be huge, technically challenging, and costly.
Rather than try to assemble a comprehensive geospatial database, it may make more sense to
determine user requirements early in the process and to design a phased system to meet these
requirements. This includes both decision-supporting information for general land use
applications, as well as specific information required to address some future end point.
Although the more users involved, the larger the geographical areas considered, and the
types of applications sought tend to argue for a larger, multi-functional information system,
the objective of a phased approach is to design systems that can be flexible and upgradable as
needed. The goal is to generate data to meet user needs on a project-by-project basis, but not
get too far ahead of the tools to handle data and user abilities to assimilate results of analysis.
As demonstrated by the initial phases of this project, however, the time required to establish
working relationships with communities considering redevelopment of brownfields is
potentially lengthy and complicated. Extensive interactions (phone calls, meetings,
presentations, and demonstrations) with city and county representatives over a three- to four-
month period are often necessary to establish a working relationship.
Potential developers could experience similar administrative delays. The amount of time
required to locate and compare sites, conduct site engineering (including any contaminant
remediation), and construct a facility could mean the difference between a decision to
purchase or to move elsewhere. This could be complicated in areas with multiple
jurisdictions, differing regulatory and incentive programs, scattered data sources among
municipal offices or agencies, and numerous stakeholder groups. An additional—and
potentially serious—complication is the inability to determine site ownership. In many cases,
clear title to the property is difficult to ascertain or the owner is unwilling to admit to having
a contaminated site as part of the public record (Consumers Renaissance Development
Corporation, 1998). On the other hand, interested and motivated community leaders can
significantly shorten the time required to start a redevelopment project if there is a
willingness to initiate site remediation and condemnation.
• Adopting new technologies is challenging at the local level. Despite the fact that Brownfields
Redevelopment Authorities have been established throughout Michigan, the integration of
GIS technologies in inventory and comparison of sites is considered somewhat new and
innovative (Consumers Renaissance Development Corporation, 1998). The use of GIS in
most communities has not progressed beyond basic mapmaking. Incorporation of tools like
GIS in local planning will also be dependent on the familiarity factor: unless it has been
shown to be effective someplace else, potential users will be reticent to adopt new
technologies.
As more and more communities begin to use GIS in planning and decision making,
applications like Smart Places will become more valuable in establishing urban land use
policy and enhancing participatory government; to help address issues of urban sprawl,
environmental quality, and environmental justice; and to shorten the time required to return
brownfields to productivity. While the prototype decision support system will not make the
decisions, it is capable of becoming an essential tool in the decision making process.

9
• Using indicators and measurable criteria in siting decisions can help focus the site selection
process. Once community goals and potential end points are established, indicators are then
applied which can measure the relative degree of success (Maclaren, 1993). Indicators can
also play the role of surrogate since it is impossible to know all physical, environmental,
social, and economic constraints and opportunities (including site suitability) which might be
present in target areas. Selected indicators must be user-friendly: simple to understand,
measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely. An example of this approach has been
implemented in Waitakere City, New Zealand’s sixth largest city (EarthNews, 1999).
Indicators can set the boundaries on data collection and manipulation. Initially, we had to
rely on secondary sources for this information. For example, we incorporated sustainable
development indicators from several programs in progress in communities throughout the
U.S. (www.rprogress.org). From there we used county soil surveys to establish a set of
physical siting constraints due to soil type, slope, susceptibility to ponding and flooding, etc.
We also used data and ratio scales from the U.S. Census Bureau 5% Public Use Microsample
to establish socioeconomic conditions at the block group level.
Once we began working with local groups (e.g., tax assessors, township supervisors,
community liaisons, school officials, etc.), we could incorporate indicators that use local data
and fine-tune community objectives. Facilitated nominal and focus groups helped determine
potential end points. As information about the study area was obtained by working with our
community partners, we were able to set siting goals and community desires (e.g., having the
local communities develop their own site selection criteria), indicators of success in meeting
goals, and how much data needed to be available to evaluate alternatives and measure
success.
We did uncover at least one area where work is needed in establishing local criteria for
decision making. Despite the fact that Michigan legislation appears to have addressed the
stigma of contaminated sites, local decision makers consistently placed a high ranking on
variables such as soil contamination and the status of environmental cleanup in selecting sites
for redevelopment. It appears that the learning curve for local government brownfield
redevelopment authorities will remain steep until education programs become more
widespread and local communities learn of successes achieved by other communities.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS

The project resulted in a prototype hands-on toolset that integrates geospatial information to
analyze the environmental and socioeconomic effects of public policy on land planning, use, and
management alternatives. This toolset uses commercially available computer applications that
are proven, inexpensive, and readily accessible to multiple stakeholder groups—decision makers
at all levels of government, business leaders, lending institutions, real estate developers, and the
general public. As such, it has value in helping local communities integrate methods and tools to
address problems of uncontrolled growth and urban sprawl.
The next steps in the project include continued development of the database for each study area
and extensive work with stakeholder groups facilitated by MSU Cooperative Extension
representatives in the communities. These community interactions will help build trust and

10
understanding and lead to better land use decisions in which multiple stakeholder groups can
participate equally. Project participants within each of the study areas will receive training in the
implementation and use of the prototype.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project was supported by the Michigan Legislature under a Michigan Applied Public Policy
Research Grant administered by the Office of the Provost, Michigan State University. The
project was co-sponsored by Michigan State University Extension, the Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station, and the Victor Institute for Responsible Land Development and Use.
Funding and other support was provided by Jackson County, the Enterprise Group of Jackson,
Inc., Jackson County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, Consumers Energy Company and
Consumers Renaissance Development Corporation, Detroit Edison, and the Electric Power
Research Institute.
The MSU Partnership for Land and Water Systems received technical assistance from the
Departments of Resource Development, Urban and Regional Planning, Geography, Entomology,
Environmental Engineering (Technical Assistance to Brownfields, Technical Outreach Services
to Communities), Center for Remote Sensing, and the Institute of Water Research. Mr. Jeremiah
Asher and Mr. Jagganandharao Matta provided significant technical support in development and
application of the geographic information system. Critical technical support was also provided
by Ms. Brenda Faber, ForeSite Consulting.

REFERENCES
Buchanan, W. 1997. The impact of brownfield initiatives on real estate markets and
redevelopment efforts, In: The Brownfield Book, Jenner & Block, Roy F. Weston, Inc. Vernon
Hills, Illinois. 111 p.
Consumers Renaissance Development Corporation. 1999. Brownfields Redevelopment Programs
in Michigan, Overview. (www.consumersenergy.com/community/crdc/brownfield.html).
Consumers Renaissance Development Corporation. 1998. Land Use Forum Proceedings, August
12-14, held jointly with Michigan State University Cooperative Extension. Boyne Highlands,
MI.
Davis, T. and K. Margolis. 1997. Defining the brownfields problem, In: Brownfields: A
Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property. T. Davis and K. Margolis, eds.
American Bar Association, Section on Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law. 703
p.
Dennison, M. 1998. Brownfield Redevelopment: Programs and Strategies for Rehabilitating
Contaminated Real Estate. Government Industries, Rockville, Maryland. 407 p.
Devine, T. 1996. Integrated site redevelopment engineering, In: Brownfields Redevelopment:
Cleaning Up the Urban Environment. How to Get the Deals Done. American Bar Association
and US Environmental Protection Agency Symposium, March 7, 1996, pp. 203-209.
Faber, B, V. Thomas, J. Olsenholler, and M. Thomas, 1997. Enhancing stakeholder involvement
in environmental decision making: Active Response Geographic Information System, in

11
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the National Association of Environmental
Professionals, Washington, D.C. pp. 174-187.
Fleming, S., and others. 2000. Michigan Site Network (http://www.dtesites.com), DTE Energy
Systems, Detroit Michigan.
Greenwald, J. 1996. A no-win war between the states, luring business with tax breaks. Time.
147, April 8, 1996, pp. 44-45.
Kirstenberg, S. and others. 1997. Brownfield Redevelopment: A Guidebook for Local
Governments and Communities. International City/County Management Association, Northeast-
Midwest Institute, Washington, DC. One volume; unpaged.
Maclaren, V. 1993. Sustainable Urban Development in Canada: From Concept to Practice, Vol.
1 Summary Report. ICURR Press, Toronto.
Michigan Society of Planning Officials, 1995. Patterns on the Land: Our Choices – Our Future.
Planning and Zoning Center, September 1995, p. iii.
Moyer, C. and G. Tremarche. 1997. Brownfields: A Practical Guide to the Cleanup, Transfer
and Redevelopment of Contaminated Property. Argent Communications Group. Foresthill,
California. 503 p.
Olympia Sustainable City Program. 1991. Testimony at the Public Hearing on the Earth Summit,
Seattle, WA, Nov. 23, 1991. Olympia Public Works Policy and Program Division. Olympia, WA. 7
p.
Pijanowski, B., W. Cooper, S. Gage, T. Edens, and D. Long, 1995. A Land Transformation
Model, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 190 p.
Rafson, H. and R. Rafson. 1999. Brownfields: Redeveloping Environmentally Stressed
Properties. McGraw-Hill, New York. 567 p.
Rusk, D. 1998. Presentation by Urban Policy Consultants at MSU based on a 1996 address to
Michigan Legislature, November 5, 1998.
Sauter, V.I. 1997. Decision Support Systems. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Simons, R. 1998. Turning Brownfields into Greenbacks. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC.
182 pp.
Sustainable Seattle. 1992. Indicators of Sustainable Community, Working Draft - Version 4.
Prepared by the Indicators Project Task Team. Seattle, WA. 18 p.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. 1998. Recycling America’s Land: A National Report on
Brownfields Redevelopment. Washington, DC. 46 p.
Thomas, M., 1994. Planning and building a land use data base to address environmental issues,
in Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the National Association of Environmental
Professionals, June 12-15, New Orleans.Washington, D.C. p. 14-24.
Thomas, M., 1993. CIESIN: Providing access to global environmental change data and
information, in Impact Assessment, the Journal of the International Association for Impact
Assessment, Volume 11, No. 3, Fall 1993. pp. 307-320.

12
Thomas, M. and N. Roller, 1993. Information systems for integrated global change research, in
Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium for Remote Sensing and Global Environmental
Change, Graz, Austria, 4-8 April 1993, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann
Arbor. pp. 294-305.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Regional Brownfields Assessments.
www.epa.gov.brownfields/
Waitakere City. 1999. Waitakere City, New Zealand declares itself an eco-city, Earth News.
(www.enn.com/enn-multimedia-archive/1999/03/).
Weiss, J. 1997. The Clinton Administration’s brownfields initiative, In: Brownfields: A
Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property. T. Davis and K. Margolis, eds.
American Bar Association, Section on Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law. 703
p.
Worrest, R., et al. 1994. The Great Lakes regional environmental information system, in
Proceedings, Computing in Environmental Management, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Raleigh, NC.

13
 Table 1.


                 "!        # 5 6 7 7 89 :;

 

     
C D E FHG I J K L M N I O D J I
P Q R S T U V R WU X Q U Y R U
r st u u v w sv u u x sv w
’ “ ” • – — ˜ “ ” • ™“ ” • š › œ ˜ 
â ã ä ä å æç å ç è è ä å æç å é ã
$% & % ' ( ) % * + ,-( ././0 1 2 3 4 <; = 7 > ? ; @"; A B 7
Z[ \ ] ^ [ _\ ^ `a b c ^ ^ d e f c ] g h i j-i k l m n o p l q p l
yz z {| } ~ }  €  ‚ ƒ ~ € } „ } …ƒ † ‡ } ˆ | ‰ Š ‹Œ  Ž   ‘ Š‘
ž/Ÿ   ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¦ © ª « ¬ © ­ ® § ¤ ¯ ° ± ² ¤ ³ ´ µ ³ ¤ ¨ ¶ ¤ ³ ¤ ¬ ³ ¤ ¬ § § ¤ © § ¦ ¨ ¦ ² ¤ ¨ ± ­ ¤ ² ¤ « ± · ¸ ¤ © ¨ ´ µ ³ ¤ ¨ ¶ ¤ ³ ¤ ÎÏ Ð Ñ Ò ÓÏ Ô Õ Ñ Ö × Ñ Î × Ø Ò × Ô Ò Ù
¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¹ ¿ À Á¾ ¿  À Ã Ä Ä º à » Å ¾ » Æ ½ Ç » Å Ã À È À É ÊHÇ » ¹ º Ë-Ì Ç ¿ ¾ Í ½ È Ã À È À Í È ¹ º » À º ½ ¾ Å Ç ¿ È Å É Ú Ö Ï Ø Ó Û-Ó Ò Ü Ý Þ Ó ß Ò Ñ Ô Ð × Ò Ï
ÓÔ Ð Ï Û Ú Ñ Ò Óà Î× á ß × ß
î í ì ë ã ä ã ç ã ã è ï ð ä í æ ì ã ã ç é æ ç ã ã ä æ ç é ñ ò ë å ì å ä ã ó ã ä ô-æ ì ä ã õ ö æ ä ã ô ã ç ì í ñ ÷ ä ã ì ë ã ä ã ó ð ì ã ç ì æ å ø  ý      û

  û ú ù 
û   ÿ
   ú þ
ê ë å ä å ê ì ã ä æí ì æê í ù ú ûü ýú þÿ ú ú ý
  ý
 û ý  û  ù 
  þ Hú ù    þ   ü    ý û  ý    

ü 
 þ  ú û  ù ú ù
ú ý
ú þ
 û
ù û
  þ
ù  ù

ý ù   ú  ú  þû

   ý   ý ú û  ù ù                         !       "  #$       %     $  &      &            ,  *   - .     $  &   

'(  ) *+$      # $    &  *  $   / #     
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7(8 5 9 8 : 4 5
; < = > ? @ A B C < = > ? = D E @ FHG < I O P Q R S T S U V U W S X Y U Q S Z [ \ U Z ]H[ T ^ _ [ T \ S ` [ P P S P P a V b V S S W S W P ^ a Z Z P c deR U Q a P {}|H~  €  ~  ‚ ƒ |H„ … † ‡ ˆ ‰ … † Š ‹ ƒ Œ
JK LM N f g h i j k l m i+h g n o p n h q res p n t u j l n h g n t p k v l o g h wyx l z u q ~  Œ …‹ ƒ
 Ž   ‘ ’ “” • –— ˜ — –™ š › œ  ž › Ÿ   ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¡ ¥ œ ¦ ›   § › ¥ ¨ © œ ª › « ¦ § ¡ ¨ ¢ ¨ ¢ ¬ ­ š › œ  ž › Ÿ Ÿ ® ¢ ¨ ¦ £ ¤ ¡ ¥ œ ¦ ›   § › ¥ ¨ © œ ª › « œ © ® ž ¡ ¦ ¨› ¢ ¯œ ¥ œ ¯ ¨¢ ¥ ¨ž ¨¢ ¨¦ £ ¡ ¢ ©
¦ § ¡ ¨¢ ¨¢ ¬ ­ § œ ¬ ¨› ¢
° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ± ¸ ¹ º »+± ¼ ½ µ ² ¾ · ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Â Å Â Ä Ã Ç È Ä Ã Å Æ Â É ÊÇ Ã Â Å Å Â Æ Ë È Ì ÊË ÊÃ Ä Í Â Æ Î É Î Æ ÊÃ Ë Ï Â Í Å Ã Æ Ä Â Ì Ä Î Ë Ç ÊÍ Í Ã Æ Ã Ì Ë Ä Â Ð ÊÎ Ñ Ç Ã Ò+Â Õ Æ Î Å Ó Ê Ð Î Ì Ç Ã Ð Â Ì Â Ò Ê Ð
µ ¸ ¹ º ¿ ± ¸ ± » · ¿ ¶ ½ º ¸ ¹ À Î Ì Ç Ã Ð Â Ì Â Ò Ê Ð Ð Ó Î Æ Î Ð Ë Ã Æ Ê Ä Ë Ê Ð Ä Ô Ä Ë Î Ë ÊÄ Ë ÊÐ Ä ÊÌ É ÊÐ ÊÌ ÊË Ï Î Ì Ç Æ Ã Õ ÊÂ Ì
ÖH× Ø Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß Ù à á Ü Û × Ú á Ú ß ä × Þ å à × Ø Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Ú Þ Þ ß Ü × æ Þ Þ ß Ù à á Ü Þ ß á æ × Ù Ü ç è × ç × å Þ ß Ù å Þ é ê ë ì í î ï ì ï î ð ñHò ó ñ ô õ ö ÷
Û Ú â × ã â Þ Ø+Þ Ú Ü
ø ù ú ûü ý þ ÿ
ú ÿ
 ü                                  ! " # $ % & ' $ ' & ( )+* , ) - . / 0
  
 
1 2 34 5 6 7 8 5 7 7 9 >3 ? ? = 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ; ; @ A A 7 8 B 7 8 7 A A 7 ; 2 9 2 < 2 ? 7 A CD2 = B E >3 ? ? A 8 7 A 7 ; 2 9 @ ; 2 F 9 9 B 7 : 7 CC@ = 3 B G 9 2 CD7 4 8 F A 5 3 : F = 9 2 : 7 = 7 C3 :
: 7 5 2 ; 3< 2 = 2 ; ; H F 6 8 3 : E >3 ? ? A 8 7 A 7 ; 2 9 @ ; 2 ? 2 F 9 B 7 9 2 : 8 2 F ; 2 ; 3 = ; F H 2 B G F = 9 ; 2 : @ 8 3 B G E ; B F B @ ; 3= < 3: 3= 3B G F = 9 8 2 4 37 =
I J K L MN O P Q R S T Q U V W X Y X U Z X [ Z \ ] S ^ \ _` Z S a \ \ Q b cU Z Z X d d U e U S V X Z R S T Q U V W V \ \ d e S [ \ _DX d \ q k zDv y o f x { h u f r q k u v r v zh u
f g f h i f j i k lnmh i i o k p h q k r s h f i f o k f p t p k o g h u k p r k k q s v j k w x y o f q k q l p s f s w p hr g hu hr hs | f r q o k y hv r
} ~  €  ‚ ~ ƒD„ ~ … † ‡ ˆ ‰ Š … € ‹ „ ŒŠ   ‚  ‚ Š „ Ž ‰ Š „  „ €~  Š €… „ Ž €~ † ~ †  „ † €~ ‘ †  €… „ Ž  ’  „  Š ‚ ~ Š  ‚ ‡€… €‹ † ‡‡’ “  † ‹ €† ‡‡’ “ Ž „ ƒD‚   †  ‘ € ‹ † ~ Ž „ ‹ ‚ ~ ‚ ƒ€ ‹
Ž „ ƒD‚   †  ‘ € ‹ † ‡ ‡ ’ ‚  „ ‹ ‚ ~ ‚ ƒ€ ‹ † ‡ ‡ ’ Ž € Š † Ž  † ~ … †  „ Ž ” Š … † … ‰ Š €~  €‹ €~ €… ’ † ~ Ž  „  €‚ ~
• – — ˜ — ™š – › œ
 žŸ   Ÿ ¡ ¢
£ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¤ ¨© ª « ¬­ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ± ¯ ¯ ³ ´ µ ¶ ² ­ ® ± · ¸ ® ¹ º ³ ¶ » ® ² ° ¸ ° ¯ ¼ ½ ¾ ³ ¸ ® ¹ º ² ³ ± ¯ ± ® ¯ ¯ ¶ ® ² ¯ ³ ¶ ¶ · ´ · ¸ º · ¿ · ¸ ³ ´ · ¶ ± ½ ¿ ® ¸µ ® ¯ °³ ¹ ´ · ¶ µ ¹ °¯ ® ¶ · ®
² ³ ± ¯ ´ · ¶ µ ¹ °¯ ® ¶ · ®
À Á Â ÃÄÂ Å ÃÄÃÆ Ç È É É ÃÊ Â Ê Ë ÃÂ Ä Ð Ñ Ò Ñ Ó Ô Ò Ò Õ Ö × Ø Ö Ù Ø Ö Ú Û Ø Û Ü Û Ø Ñ Ö Ú Ý Ô Þ Õ Ô × Õ ß Ü Ô Û Õ à Ø Ö Ô Ö Ó Ø Ô Ò á Õ Ú Ñ Ü á Ó Õ Ú â ã á Õ Û Ý Õ ä ånØ Ò Ò Ø Ö Ù Û Ñ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þü ÿ þ ý
  ÿ
þ
Ì Í Î Î È ÏÆ æ ç è é ê ë ì í è î ï ð ñ è ç ò ó ì æ ç è æ è ð ì ë ë ì é ì í è æ ôDì ï ò õ
 ÿ ú  
ù ú ö
     
                                                    !     "      "    < = > ? @ ACB > @ ? D E F B ? D G H @ I B J K B > L
#%$ & ' ( ) * + ,.- / 0 / & 1 #%1 #2( 3 3 ( ) * 0 $ 4 $ 0 $ / 0 0 & / 5 0 0 - ( 6 4 1 7 1 3 $ 8 91 ) 0 + ,.( 3 3 4 1 7 1 3 $ 8 91 ) 0 J= M ?@ N MD < = O D MK
& 1 6 : 30 () / 4 4 (0 ($ ) / 3 0 / ; & 1 7 1 ) : 1 6 +
P2Q R S T UV W R X.Y Z Z [ \ ] ^ _ `a b c d ] a ] \ e e _ b ^ e b _ e _ ] a f \ ] a g X.Y Z Z e b _ e _ ] a f \ ] a c a d [ [ a ] ] Y c Z a ^ _ f a `_ h b d e i Y [ d j f a [ _ j _ `CY [
[ \ ] ^ _ `a b ] g ] ^ d ^ \ ] Yj k Y[ Yj Y^ l d j f b a h Y_ j
X.Y Z Z Y j h ] a Z Z a b m%d j ^ i Y ] ] Y ^ a c a _ c ^ d Y j a f d ^ d n d Y b e b Y [ a g o p q rstq ts u v
wx yz{ | }z ~  }~ z€ 
‚ ƒ „ … † ‡ ˆ ƒ ‰%Š „ ‹ Œ  … Ž „ ‹
  ‘ ’ “ ”C“ • – • ‘ — • “ ˜ “ • – ™ š  › “ œ š ™  ž Ÿ Ÿ   ¡ ¢ £ ¡ ¤ ¥ ¢ Ÿ ž ¦ ¡ § Ÿ ¢ ¨ Ÿ © Ÿ § £ ž ¡ § ª « ¬ £ ­ ® © Ÿ ­ ¤ ¯ « ž ¬ § Ÿ ¢ ¢ °%­ £ Ÿ ž ª °%­ ¢ £ Ÿ £ ž Ÿ ­ £ ±Ÿ ¤ £ ² Ê Ë.Ì Í ÎÐÏ ÑÒ ÑÎCÓ2Í Ô Õ Ö Ô×Ø
³ ´ µ ¶ · ³ ¸ µ ¸ ¹ ºµ µ ¸ » ¼ ¹ ½ µ ¾ ¸ µ ´ ¿ µ µ ´ À Á Â.Ã Ä Ä À µ ¼ Å Ã ¾ µ À ¿ µ µ ´ ¸ ¹ Æ µ · » Ç ¼ ³ ´ µ ´ ³ ¿ ´ ³ ¸ È2É ³ ¸ Ù Ú Û Ü ÝÞ ÝÚ Û Ú ß à á â ã ÝÙ á à ä Ù Ú à Þ å æ Û ÝÞ
¾ ¹ À ¸Á
ç è é ê ë ìCë í î í é í è ï ð ñ ò é è í ï í ë é ð ó è ô ò è ô õ ô è è ô ö í è ï ð ñ ò é è í ï í ë é ð è ô ñ é ÷ è ø ô ñ ù è é ï ö ñ ú è ï ë û ú ï ë è ú ü%ï í ô è ý ï ö ô þ ÷ ï í ô í é ìô ô í ö ëñ í ï ð ø ô í é ð ô ï è ô ñ í ò é ëð í é õ
ò è é ÿ ô ø í ô ö ð ô ô ö ñ
.ë û û õ ï ø ë û ë í ë ô ñ ð ô ô ö í é  ô ÷ ò  è ï ö ô ö ï ð ö ï í ü ï í ø é ñ í ïøøôññ
ç è é ê ë ìCë í î í é    
              
         

         
            )*      
 & 
 +     
 ( ,
í ô û ô ø é ìCìC÷ ð ë ø ï í ë é ð ñ    !     "     #          $ %

   &          '    (           
   $
-   .   ,               +                       &  
 '

  

,       (    $ %        + / 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 8 3 4 1 9 : 8 2 3 2 0: 4 ;
        '      (   $ 86 5 : < 6 8= 5 : 1 21
> ? @ A B C ? D"E ? F G H IJ G H A F K
L M N OM P Q R Q P S N T ] ^ _ ` a b c b d e f ` g hi f g f ` j k c b j b f ` g ` l f b g c j i ` b m n%a e i j c b j k e f j i o p b m qr s t u v wx y z q {x | u
U V W X Y Z[ W Y W X \ }"~  € }"€  ‚ ƒ  „ „ … † ‡ € ˆ † … ~ 
‰ Š ‹"Š Œ  Ž    ‘ ’ Š “ ”  ’ Š ‹"Š ‘  • – — ˜ ™ š ˜ — ˜ — ˜ ›"˜ œ  ž ™  Ÿ   ¡ Ÿ ¢ ™ ¢ £ —  Ÿ — ™ Ÿ œ ˜ ¤ ˜ ¥ Ÿ £ ›"˜   ™ ¦ §%š Ÿ £ ž ¨ ¢ © Ÿ — — ˜ ›"˜ œ  ž ™  Ÿ   ¦ ª ¢ ¥˜ ¤ ˜ ¥ Ÿ © ¡ ¥˜ ž   ­ £ — ˜ ® ­ — ˜ œ ¯
— ˜ ›"˜ œ  ž ™  Ÿ   ¡ Ÿ ›£ ž ™  « ¥ ˜ ¬ ™ š £ — Ÿ £ Ÿ ¢ ˜ œ ­ ¢ ˜ ¦ ™  ›"˜ ¯¡ Ÿ ¢ ™¢
°%± ² ² ± ³ ´ ³ µ ± ´ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º °%± ² ² ³ µ ± ´ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º º » ¼ ¼ ¸ ¹ ½ ¸ ¹ ¸ ¼ ¼ ¸ º µ ¾ µ ¿ µ ² ¸ ¼ À"µ ³ ½ Á °%± ² ² ¾ µ ¿ µ ² ¸ ¼ À"µ ³ ½ ¾ ± ¿ ± ¾ µ É Ê Ë Ë Ê Ì Í*Î Ï Í Ð Ñ Ò Ó
 ¸ ÀÀ» ³ ± ½ à Á°%± ² ² ¼ ¹ ¸ ¼ ¸ º µ ¾ » º µ Ä ¾ ¾ ½ ¸  ¸ ÀÀ» ³ ± ½ Ã Å Ä · ¹ ±  Á ÆÇÈ È
Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Ø Û Ü Ý Þ ß ààÕ Ú Ù × Ù Ý Ö è é ê ë ì ê ì é í î ï é í ðñ ò ó ñ ô õ"ö é ò í ë ê ÷ ö ô ì ë ø ì õõï ô ñ ò ù î í é ñ ë í é ú û ü ý þ ÿ ý ÿ
     
áâ áã áä ã áå æ ç

         
                  ! " #  !      $%    &   '   & $%     ( )   #  #   * &  + , - . / 0 1 2 3%465 1 7 > ? @ A B C:B D E D @ F B G > @ G H I J H K B I B D B L G
1 8 . 0 . 8 9:, 7 8 . ; < , 8 . =
9 . 2 7/ 3 D ? H M G > @ ? D H D B@ M ? @ N D L G

14
O PQ R S T UPV W X Y Y Z [ \ ]%Z [ ^ Z _ ` a b c a d \ _ [ [ e Z _ d e f:g a [ Z h i \ a Z j k l a i Z [ m a [ [ a Z _ f=\ _ [ n e _ \ Y o p6^ a [ a j \ „ … † „ ‰:„ Š ‹
h a Y \ i Z _ \ d e _ b Z [ Z e _ Y o X Y q r s t s u v v w xu y vs s z z v{ s | q q t u } ~|  €  ‚ƒ  ‚‡ ˆ
ŒŽ   ‘ ’ “  ” •  – — ˜  ™ –  š š •  • › ™  ” ˜ “ ‘ œ    ž Ÿ ‘ › “ ™ š    ‘ ™   š  š œ› ‘ ¡ ‘› ¡ › ˜  š “ ˜  ¢ 6 Œ £    ‘  ¤  ˜  ”•™   ‘   • ™ ¡ ‘ › ¥ • ¦:•  –
 › ™ š •  • › ™ ˜ ¢ — ˜  £  ‘   ” ” ›   ¤ ”   œ œ ” “  ™   ‘  š •™ Ÿ ¢

15
Table 2. Brownfield site selection, weighting and ranking criteria and information requirements
developed for Jackson County.
§ ¨ª©¬«­§:®6¨°¯­±³²­´­µ¶±³´³·°²³«­´­¸¬¹ ´¬®º©Ž²Ž¹ ·³±³²Ž¹ « » ¼ ½¾ ¿ Ê%Ë Ì Í Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö ×ŽØ Ù Ú Õ Ó=ÛÕ Ü Ö Ý Þ
À Á ÂÃ Ä Î%Ë Ï Ð Ñ
Å%Æ Ç È É
ß%à á â=ã:ä å æ à á à ä å çè:é ê:ë ä à å á ç
ìí î ï ð ñ í òŽó í ô õ ö ÷:ñ í ô õ ò6ï í õ ô ï ñ í=ø%ù ú û ó ü ô ó ý þ ÿ
     
                     
      !  " # $ %  & $ !'( )   *+ , - . - /- - 0 ' ' 1  2 "   & # ' 3 4  1 

" 5 6 ' 1 2 2 $  33 # " #
78 9 : ; < 8 =!> 8 ? @ A B 8 9 > C ? : D @ ? : < 8FE @ ; ? : @ A A GHF< =
I A > ? > J K L MN N OP Q R S T QU V WX Y Q P+Z[\]^ _[ ]
`a b c d e f g hi j i g k l m!i n o pFk n c o q f d n o cr s d c o t u t vu u w
xFy z|{ } ~  € }   ‚ƒ„+… † ‡ † ˆ † ‰Š
y‹ Œ  Ž  ‹ !Š ‹ ‡ † ‘ ’ ‹ Œ Š ‰ ‡  “ † ‡   ‹”F 
• ‘ Š ‡ Š – } { —} } ˜™ š › œ+ ž   Ÿ ¡ž ¢Ÿ ¡!£ œ › ¤ ¥ ¦ › § ¡¨ ©
ª « ¬ ! ­ £¨ œ £  ® œ ¥œ š › œ
¯° ± ² ± ° ³´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ ° · º » ° º · ¼½F¸ ¾ ¸ » ± ° ³À¿FÁ ÂF¾ à ± µ ° ¹
ÄÅ Æ Ç ÈÉÊ Ë ÈÌFÆ Ë Å Í Î Ï Å ÌFÅ Í Ð Ñ Æ Ï Ð Å Ò Å Ó Ë Í Ô Ó Õ Ö × Ø ÙÚ Û ÜÝ Þ ß Þ Ý àá â ã ä Þå âá æ â å á ç
èêé ë ì í îðïí ñ ò ó ô õ ö÷ ø ùú û ü û ú ýþ ÿ
û ÿ þ
 ÿ  þ ö
     
                 
    
! " # $&% ' ( ) ( * + , -* + .) / ' / ) 01 ( 2 3 /" ( 1
 %( " 1 -
4 5 6 5 7 8 9&9&: ; < 7 = > < 8 ; ?@ ; A B = ? > B : 7 > : B 5CED FEG 8 < ; > ?
HI J K L M N O KP I Q N R S T M I O UI V U M W X X N Y Z [ \ ] ^_ ` ab c d c b ef g h i c j gf kg jf l
mn o p o q r sut v wx r y n q w z { |} ~ € €  ‚&ƒ „ … † ‡ˆ ‰ €Š ‹† ‡Œ †  ‰ Œ Ž  †  ‡ „   €  ƒ ƒ Œ … Š ‹ ‹ ‰ „ ‰
‘’ † ƒ † € Š ‹“  ” Š ‰ ’ € “ ” • –— ˜ ™š š › œ& ž Ÿ   ¡¢ £ š¤ ¥  ¡¦   § £ ¦ ¨ §   › ¡ ž © ª š ›   ¦ Ÿ ¤ ¥ ¥ £ ž £
« ¬ ­ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ ¬ µ ¶ ­® ·¸ ¹ ¶ ´ º» ¶ ¬ ´ ­ ¼ º ½ ¾¼ º ¿­ ­ ± À&² Á ® ¸ ·Â ¬ ­¶ µ¸ ·Ã ¸ ¯ ¬ Ã Ä ¯ ¸ ± · Á » Å ­ ± ² ² à ® ¶ µ µ ¬ Á ¬
ÆÇ È É Ê Ë Ì Ç Í È Í Î Ì É&Ï É Ð Ç È Ê Í Ç Ñ Ò Í Ñ Ç ÓÕÔEÖ ×EË Ì Î É Í Ê
Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Ú Þ Ú Ûßà à Û Ý Ý á âÞ ã ä á ßã Ü å æ Ü Ú ç è é ê ëì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ñ ô ñõ ô ö ÷ øõ ó ù ú ô ñ û ð ø
üuý þ ÿ
ÿ  
  Õþ  


 þ      Eþ               
 ! "
#  $ %   &  #
'
( ) * + , - . /
* . 01* 2 + 3 /4* - , 5 6 7 89 : ; < = >
? @ A B ; C D E >
F G E C H I
; J > > ; K : L 8K : F G E C H @ C ; C
? ; < =
> ? @ A B ; C D E >
M1N OQP R S T U T V T S W
XT S Y1Z N [ R V Z R \ ]^_ `M1N \ S a N V _
b1c d1P N T \ S _
e1f gQh i j k l m n o p q rs s tvu w x y z { | u } ~  € }  } 
‚ € z ƒ  } u } „ y ~ … † ‡ ˆ‰ Š ‹ † Œ  Ž   ‹
‘1’ “Q” • – — ˜ ™ š– ™ ›1œ ž  Ÿ   — ™ – ’ ˜ ž ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥¦ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ­ ®¨ ¯ ° ± ² ¯ ³¯ 
v ´ ² ¬ µ ³¯ ¨ ¯ ¶ «
·¸ ¹ º1¸ »Q¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À ¹ Á  à Ä  Š¿ Æ ¹ Ç È ¼ ½¿ À É Ê ¸ À ¾À 
v Ë ¸ È Ì ¾À ¿ À Í Ç
ÎÏ Ð Ð Ñ Ò Ó ÔÕ ÑÎ1Ö ×QØ Ù Ó Ú Û Ú Ü Ú Ó Ý
ÞÚ Ó ß1à Ö á Ù Ü à Ù Ò âÔÕ Ñã
Ü Ù Ò
Õ ä
å æ1ç è é ê ë ì
í1î ïQð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù úû û üvý þ ÿ
  ý       

   ý  
                ! "     # $     %
 " &     ' !
() *+ , - . / . 0 . - 1324. - 5
67 8 8 ) 7 9 : . 9 ;4< , 9 :4=> ? >3@A B+ ) . 9 - >
CD EF G H I J K L M G N
O3P D F D N L Q R S T U VW X YZ [ \ ] ^ _ ` Z a b c d a e a

f d ^ g e a Z a h ] b i j k lm n o j p q r s t o
uv wx y z { | } ~  €4{ z ‚~ ƒ ~ „ … y z { v † ƒ ‡ ˆ ‰ Š ‹Š Š Œ y ƒ z ~ „ x }y †  Ž v † {†

  v „  { † y † ‘ ~  „ ~ ’ “ ‹ ƒ ~ z | y ‘ ” ƒ
•– — ˜– ™š › — œ  ž Ÿ   › ¡
¢3£ – š – ¡ Ÿ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¥ §¦ ¨ © › ¡ — Ÿ £ š ž› ª « ¬ – ª œª

 ­ – £ ¤ œ ª › ª ® Ÿ « £ Ÿ ¯ °¤ § ¡ Ÿ —  › ® ± ¡

16
Table 2. Brownfield site selection, weighting and ranking criteria and information
requirements (continued).
²´³¶µ·4¸
¹¶º4»4¼¶»4¼·½´¾ ·´¿À²Á»Á¾ ¸4Â4»Á¾ ¼ Ã Ä ÅÆ Ç ÒÓ Ô Õ Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ßÁà á â Ý Û
ã3Ý ä Þ å æ
È É ÊË Ì ÖÓ × Ø Ù
ÍÎ Ï Ð Ñ
ç3è é ê ë ì è íÁî è ï ð ñ ò
ê ó ô ð è õ
öì í÷ ñ ê ð è ø î
ùú û÷ ì ê è ï ó
üÁý þ ÿ
ÿ þ   ý þ   ý ÿ þ  þ ÿ ý  
               ! " ! # ! $ %& '( )+* % $ , - " $
./ 0 1 2 34 0 2 1 4 / 0(5 2 06 78 7 3+/ 9 7 : ; 34 0 4 3< 3=8 4 > ? @A B C DA A E(F G+8 7 > < H 1 >
./ 0 1 2 34 0 2 1 4 / 0(5 2 06 75 / 0 1 2 4 0 7 :/ 0(> 4 1 7 @A I JK K L(M N+O P Q R S T Q
U V W X Y W Z [ \ ] ^ W ^ _ X` V Y W [ aZ Y [ W Z V Y bc d ec c f(g h+_ X i ^ \ W i
j k l m n(o p q(r o st o u o t o l v o rwx yz { | l } r
~  €  ‚ ƒ „ …† ‡ ˆ‰ Š ‹ Œ  Ž ‘ ’“ ” • – — ˜™ š — ›— œš ”  ›—  —ž “
Ÿ  ¡¡+¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ©ª ª ¥ ¤ ¢ «¬ ­ ®¯ ¯ ° ±
 ² ³´ µ ¶ ·± ¸ ¹º » ¸ ¼¸ ½ » µ ¾ ¼¸ ± ¸¿ ´
À+Á Â Ã Ä Å(Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Ê Ç Í Ë ÎÏ Ð ÑÒ Ó Ô Õ
 Ö ×Ø Ù Ú ÛÕ Ü ÝÞ ß Ü àÜ á ß Ù â àÜ Õ Üã Ø
ä(å æ ç è å é ê ç ë ì íî ï ðñ ò ó ô
 õ ö÷ ø ù úô û üý þ û ÿû þ ø
ÿû ô û ÷
          
   
     
        !!"$#!% &'&  (  ( )  ( * + , - - ./ 0 1!2 2 3 6 4 5 7 89 :<; = 2> ?<9 :!@ 9 3 : 7A B2 3 5 5 C8> ?<? = 7=
DE F G H I JI K L MN D$O N!P Q6RL K S'T I H U G VW$L F T X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ `a b c d
! d e f6g h ij k l
< m dn o j
< k p
! j e k hq rd e g g sin o<o m hm
tu v w x y zy { | }{ ~6~6u  x € z<!‚ ƒ ‚ w { „ ~‚  € …w { † ‡ˆ$| v  € ‰ Š ‹ Œ Ž  
!  ‘ ’6“ ” •– — ˜
< ™ š › –
< — œ
! – ‘ — ” ž ‘ “ “ Ÿ•š ›<› ™ ”™
 ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦¥ § ¨ ©$ª « ¬ ¨ ­ § ® ¢ £ ¯ ¤ ° ¢ ° ® ¤ ° ± ² ³ ² ´³ ³ µ ¶
! ¶ ¡ ·6¸ ª ¤§ ° ¹
< ¢ ¶¬ º §
< ° ®
! § ¡ ° ª¦ »¶ ¡ ¸ ¸ £¤¬ º<º ¢ ª¢
¼½ ¾ ¿ À Á ÂÁ Ã Ä Å Æ Ç ½ È É Ä À ¾ ¿ Ê ¾ Ë À ¿ À É À Ì ÈÍ ¾ Î<Ï Î Ì Ð6Ñ É À Ã Æ È Ò Ó Ô ÕÒ Ó Ö È
! È ½ Ð6Ñ É ÀÃ Æ ×
< ¾ ÈÌ Ç Ã
< Æ Ë
! à ½ Æ É ØÈ ½ Ñ Ñ ¿ÀÌ Ç<Ç ¾ ɾ
Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ!ß à Ü á Ý â ß àãä åæ Ü ç è é à
êë ì í î ï ð<ñò ë ó ô ò ë õ ï<ì ö ì í ÷ ì ø ÷ ï ù ú û ò ë ü ë ï ú ý ò î ú ï<ü í þï ÿ

   
       
               
     !"  # $ "  %  &   '  ( '  ) ' "  *  + , "  + -  ./ 01 2 3 45 6 7 8 9 : ; : < = > ? @ A B C ? ; D> E = ? C F ? C @ 8 G : 8 @ H ? C
I J KML N O P Q P Q RO S O P T O K T U VW X YZ [ \M] ] ^ _a` b c d ef g ] h id eMj d ^ e b k l ] ^ ` ` m c h ii g b g
no p qr s t uav w x y u/t s z {| } ~} | a€‚ ƒ „ … „ ƒ † ‡ ˆ‰‹ŠŒ  ƒ Ž ƒ
‘ ’ “ ” • –— ˜ ™ š • š — ˜ ›œ žŸ — š ˜ • ›
 ¢¡ £ ¤ ¥ ¦/§ ¨ © ª £ §« ¥ ¬ ª ¤ § ­®¢¯ ¤ ° ¯ ±M² ³¦a¯ « § £ ´µ ¶ · ¸· · ¹º » ¼ ½ ¼ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Á ½ ÆÆ Á Æ ½ À Ç È É Á »
ÊË Ì Í Ì Î Ï ÐÑ Î ÏÒ¢Ó Ô Ô Õ Ö Ö Ë Õ × Ö Ø Ï ÒÚÙ/Õ Ë Û Ï Ö Î ÜÝ Þ ß àá á âMã ã ä åaæ ç è é êë ì ã í îé êMï é ä ê ç ð ñ ã ä æ æ ò è í îî ì ç ì
óé åaæ í ç è ç é ô ãMò é ï ì ç í îõ¢è ç ö è êM÷ øåaè ò í ã ùø ú ûü ü ý þ ÿ
       

      þ  þ   
                 ! " #$ % & $ ' ( ) * +, ) - .

/0 1 2 1 3 4 5763 4 3879: ; < 4 31 = >? ? 4 2 @ : A B C B @ D

E F G H I J K LM N OP Q R ST U V
T T U
W X Y Z [ \ ] ^_ ` acb d e f g h i jk kl
m n o p q r s tu v wx y z { |
}~ €ƒ € ‚ „ … † ‡ ˆ ‰ Šc‹ ‹ † … ‚ Œ Ž  ‘ ’ “
” ’ ’
•– ——ƒ˜ ™ š › œ  ž Ÿc    › š ˜ ¡c˜ ¢ › £ — ¤ ¥ ¦§¨ ¤
© ª
 ««ƒ¬ ­ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³c´ ´ ¯ ® ¬ µª ¶ · ¤ ¥
¸¹ º »¼ ¹ ½ ¾ »¿ À Á» Â Ã Ä Å ÆÇÈ Å
¸¹ º »¼ ¹ ½ ¾ »¿ À Éc¹ ¼ » Ê Ë Ì Í ÎÏ Ð
ÑÒ Ó ÔÕ Ò Ö × ÔØ Ù ÚÛ Ü Ý Ì Í
Þß à á â ã ä å ã à æ ç èƒé æ êëé ì â æ íá ß î ï ð ñòó ð
Þß à á â ã ä å ã à æ ç èƒé æ êëé ì â æ ôcæ õ á ã ö ÷ ø ùú û
üý þ ÿ
 
þ     
   ÷ø

17
TABLES & FIGURES/captions

Figure 1. Example scenario showing a brownfield (arrow) being considered for industrial
redevelopment. The database indicates site location, previous use, known contaminants,
and remediation status.

Figure 2. A restriction check of the proposed site indicates the presence of environmental
contamination and wetlands protected under statute. Other physical, economic, and
social constraints would also be checked as part of the decision process.

Figure 3. This figure illustrates how building size; number of employees; water and sewer;
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; road access and parking; and other design
criteria can be incorporated in a decision process.

Table 1. A set of siting guidelines and metrics applied in a decision-support framework for
Industrial, Commercial, or Service land uses. Additional guidelines can be developed
for alternative land uses.

Table 2. Brownfield site selection, weighting and ranking criteria and information requirements
developed for Jackson County.

18