Rethinking Highest and Best Use of Remediated Sites: Synergies with Conservation

Typically, when a contaminated site has been remediated and approaches regulatory closure, attention turns to what seems like a logical and straightforward question: What should this land become?

The answer is often framed in financial terms. “Highest and best use” is routinely defined as the option that delivers the strongest return. This may lead to a sale for redevelopment or a decision to hold the property until real estate conditions improve.

But framing future-use options in strict financial terms and failing to consider the full range of options early in the remediation process can limit opportunities and lead to suboptimal outcomes.

Remediated properties are part of larger landscapes. They may sit along waterways or near wetlands, often within developed areas where natural systems and communities overlap. When viewed in isolation, the range of options for a given parcel may appear limited. When viewed in its broader geographic context, different possibilities begin to take shape for the property.

This does not mean that financial considerations should be set aside. It means they should be weighed along with other factors that influence and determine the range of potential long-term outcomes. From a land planning perspective, future-use options should reflect the connectedness and functional attributes of the property with respect to the surrounding landscape and community.

Expanding the Definition of Value

Some remediated properties present clear opportunities for redevelopment without significant focus on environmental benefits. Such sites are often located in urban areas connected to supporting infrastructure. Even in these cases, opportunities exist to encourage land planning designs that incorporate environmental elements and provide community benefits.

For example, a former industrial riverfront site located next to an urban residential neighborhood was sold for commercial redevelopment with an environmental covenant in place. This covenant reserved 10 acres along the waterfront for habitat restoration, improving stormwater management and providing access to the waterfront for the neighbors. The sale of this property (a non-performing asset) at market value helped pay for remediation, reduced taxes and management burdens, and established a future use aligned with the landscape and community needs.

Basing a property’s value solely on immediate financial return often fails to capture the full range of options, each with its own risks and opportunities. Some sites carry ongoing obligations, including monitoring and managing potential exposure pathways over time. In certain cases, selling remediated properties for redevelopment or commercial and residential use may introduce complexities that are not apparent at the outset or raise concerns about risks that may ultimately be deemed unacceptable.

At the same time, properties that contain natural resources and support valuable habitat for wildlife may lend themselves to alternative outcomes that define a different kind of highest and best use. Properties exhibiting these attributes present opportunities for conservation-focused uses like nature preserves, greenway connections, and wildlife management areas. Depending on the nature of the site, applications supporting both development and conservation elements are also possible.

Conservation-focused disposition of these sorts of lands can result in reasonable financial return. Such transactions can even be revenue neutral relative to the market, depending on demand, the comparative value of the natural resources, and the level of interest potential conservation buyers might have. Conservation-focused transactions can deliver significant benefits to both the public and the party responsible for remediating the property.

When options such as these are considered together, the concept of value begins to shift. It becomes less about a single transaction and more about how the property functions in space over time. This approach emphasizes future value. To effectively manage this process, it is very important to begin thinking about and working on potential options early in site remediation.

For example, remediation was completed on limited portions of a very large property that contained ecologically valuable habitat (bottomland hardwood forest) supporting water quality goals as well as the protection of threatened and endangered species. The property was quite remote and presented limited opportunities for development or commercial use other than timber management. In contrast, this environmentally sensitive tract was highly important to regional and national conservation interests. After careful evaluation, the land was sold to a qualified conservation buyer in a tax-advantaged sale that was favorable for both parties. The property was combined with adjacent conservation lands to create a contiguous wildlife management area encompassing thousands of acres.

Starting Early

It’s important to consider potential future uses early in the process, ideally during the remedial investigation phase. Waiting too long can narrow the range of viable options or make some opportunities more difficult to pursue. As possibilities emerge, they can be discussed with clients to understand priorities and level of interest. These early conversations can help shape a path forward and set expectations for how the process will unfold.

Turning these alternatives into viable outcomes takes time and commitment. Ongoing dialogue helps explore and refine options while keeping client leadership informed and aligned with key decisions. At the same time, relationships with potential conservation partners should be developed thoughtfully, particularly when they may become buyers or conservation easement holders. This depends on mutual trust earned by sharing information, working together toward a common goal, and involving decision-makers.

Working Across Disciplines

Moving from remediation to a well-defined future use rarely falls within a single area of expertise. It requires coordination among environmental professionals, legal teams, real estate specialists, and external partners.

The process extends beyond the organization. Engagement with regulators allows proposed uses to be consistent with site conditions, while local governments and nonprofit organizations may play a role in planning, funding, or long-term stewardship.

This takes time and depends on clear communication. Progress is not always linear. Even so, when goals are aligned, it leads to outcomes that would not be possible otherwise.

Recognizing Limits

Not every site is suited to alternative uses. Some properties are better redeveloped. Others may need to be retained for operational reasons, and some are constrained by site conditions or timing.

The objective is not to replace one model with another, but to have decisions that are informed by a complete set of considerations. By broadening the evaluation process, organizations can better understand trade-offs and identify opportunities that align with both business needs and external conditions.

A Different Kind of Decision

The period following the completion of remediation marks a transition point, where planning moves to implementation, and decisions carry lasting implications. If value is defined narrowly, the range of outcomes will be limited. When it is considered more broadly, additional pathways may become viable. The goal is to make decisions about the disposition of remediation properties that are aligned with corporate objectives, societal needs, and environmental resilience over time.

Financial return will continue to be a major factor in the decision-making process. It just shouldn’t be the only one.

Steven S. Brown, PhD, is a Principal Scientist at Anchor QEA.