Stakeholder Action Plan: Vasquez Boulevard/I-70 Superfund Site

1
Stakeholder Action PlanVasquez Boulevard/I-70
Superfund Site

• Findings and Recommendations
• By
• George Weber
• 303/494-8572 gw_at_gwenvironmental.com
  www.gwenvironmental.com

2
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Meeting agenda
• Presentation of findings and recommendations
• Questions, answers, and discussion
• Decisions about next steps if any and, if so
• Action Plan, and next meeting.
• PLEASE HOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL END!!

3
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• PURPOSE
• Over-arching goal develop a better understanding
  of how well the Program process has been working,
  so that we can get as many community members as
  possible to take advantage of the services
  offered.
• More specifically
• Identify additional influential stakeholders.
• Develop strategies for avoiding or minimizing
  potential conflict among community groups and
  individuals.

4
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Methods
• Action or critical research
• Qualitative case study design
• Conceptual framework
• Sample -- 20 representative stakeholders as
  knowledgeable informants
• Questionnaire survey
• Follow-up in-depth interviews
• Follow-up contacts
• Review of documents
• Analyst became participant-observer as
  facilitator
• Qualitative analysis and
• Write-up of results recommendations based on
  the conceptual framework.

Graphical Representation of Conceptual Model Why
How Stakeholders Mobilize
to Address A Problem Collaboratively
5
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• How Findings and Recommendations Should be Viewed
  Some Qualifications
• Assessment intended to determine perceptions, not
  right or wrong.
• Language is a mix of paraphrasing, quotes, and
  comments by the analyst. Attempt was made to
  distinguish the latter.
• Analysis is judgmental, analysts interpretation
• Conclusions should be viewed as working
  hypotheses not necessarily certain, validated
  Truth.
• Conclusions are intended for discussion,
  plausibility should be weighed. Hope is that
  these stimulate thought, more discussion and
  analysis, and insights for improving
  implementation

6
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Of 20 Knowledgeable Informants
• Participating
• 10 participated fully.
• Not Participating
• 1 declined to answer survey
• 1 answered survey, declined interview
• 1 partially answered survey, then did not respond
  to contacts
• 1 said they would respond, didnt
• 1 never responded to any contacts.
• 5 EPA decided not to pursue given concerns raised
  about PWRA

7
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
8
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Problems Actions for Improving Program
  Implementation Identified
• Problems, within context of this assessment,
  given Site Managers goals, are framed as
  potential barriers or constraints on Program
  implementation.
• Presumably, if barriers are removed or mitigated,
  then Program implementation should proceed more
  effectively and efficiently.
• Actions -- to eliminate or mitigate a barrier
  or just improve implementation.
• We are relying on the collective wisdom of
  participating stakeholders.
• Some actions have been implemented as a result
  of the assessment process and through progress in
  implementation occurring during assessment
  process.

9
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Barriers Perceived by Participants and Analyst
• Many of the problems have been addressed
• Assessment is action or critical research
• Doing the research starts the process of change
• Some preliminary results provided to EPA, Site
  Manager responded, some addressed in WG
  facilitation

10
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Additional influential stakeholders were
  identified
• EPA, initiating CHP has identified additional
  stakeholders (individuals and organizations)
• Assessment did identify some new stakeholders
• Some stakeholder organizations identified, but
  not representatives/contacts

11
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
12
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Representation and involvement may have decreased
  over time
• Potential causes
• Lack of Working Group meetings
• Absence of key individuals (facilitating, central
  positions, boundary spanners)
• Natural phenomena expected given stage of Program
  development

13
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Potential for continuing conflict is present
  given perceptions of The Process
• Legal-administrative and cultural realities of
  The Process differ
• Opposite perspectives of CHP initiative were held
  by participants
• Perception that overarching process community
  representation and involvement is faulted
• Desire to customize implementation AND work
  through The Process (Dont triangulate)

14
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Potential for continuing conflict is present
  given perceptions of The Process
• Legal-administrative cultural realities of The
  Process differ
• EPA CDPHE CERCLA Program Mangers have
  responsibilities and authority
• Others are in advisory or supporting roles
• Culture developed has created expectations of a
  CD process (open, equals, consensus decisions)

15
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Potential for continuing conflict is present
  given perceptions of The Process
• Opposite perspectives of CHP initiative were held
  by participants
• DEH described extensive intensive community
  representation involvement
• Community residents felt left out of award
  decision development process
• If unresolved, potential source of big conflict

16
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Potential for continuing conflict is present
  given perceptions of The Process
• Opposite perspectives of CHP initiative were held
  by participants
• Speculative questions
• Did DEH reach out to others, but NOT CEASE? Or,
• Did the issue relate more to specific DEH staff
  and how they worked?
• Is finding a factor of the limited assessment?
• Did CEASE fall through the cracks? If so, how?
• Look closer at who DEH contacted and how they
  involved them?

17
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Potential for continuing conflict is present
  given perceptions of The Process
• Opposite perspectives of CHP initiative were held
  by participants
• Factors helping explain?
• Conflict between legal-administrative reality vs.
  the culture that has developed of The Process
• Communication problems, and most specifically
  lack of Working Group meetings and
• Absence of less intensive involvement of several
  key agency and community individuals during the
  spring and summer 2004.

18
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Potential for continuing conflict is present
  given perceptions of The Process
• Opposite perspectives of CHP initiative were held
  by participants
• Lesson may offer guidance of how to avoid or
  minimize potential conflict in Program
  implementation remaining, and in future clean-up
  programs.
• We may have fixed 3/31 4/7
• Watch Steering Committee Meetings

19
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Potential for continuing conflict is present
  given perceptions of The Process
• Some may hold a perception that the overarching
  process for involving Site residents, i.e.,
  community representation and involvement, in the
  Program as a whole is faulted
• How many think this way? Who?

20
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Potential for continuing conflict is present
  given perceptions of The Process
• Customize implementation AND work through The
  Process (Dont triangulate)
• Are you trying to have it both ways?
• Is this lose-lose?

21
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Some questions
• Should EPA CDPHE remind Working Group members
  of legal roles?
• How would NOT triangulating but working through
  the process affect the potential for conflict?
• Should you be explicit that the Working Group is
  THE main arena -- and that groups/people need to
  be involved -- or they could miss out?
• Should you work to broaden representation again,
  e.g., recruit folks that have abdicated from or
  been pushed out of the process or leave it
  alone?
• Should EPA CDPHE just cut deals bilaterally --
  at the risk of stirring conflict with CEASE and
  the larger Working Group?
• Have we planted a solution to this knot?

22
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Potential for conflict will remain for at least 6
  reasons
• Tension between the legal-administrative
  cultural realities will remain
• Bilateral initiatives by Program Managers
• Competition and differences among community
  organizations
• DEH may be a competitor, and EPA may have enabled
  this
• Conflicts and negative affect ARE present among
  some community groups and leaders within the site
  
• Increasing representation and involvement in the
  Program and The Process may increase the
  potential for conflict

23
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Alternative action recommendations to consider
• Strategic alternatives
• Tactical Tools
• A simplified view of the Site, its neighborhoods,
  and some stakeholders and their relationships a
  bridging approach for focusing subsequent
  implementation?

24
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Strategic alternatives
• Pursue a full community development (CD)
  strategy
• Do not pursue CD approach, just do it
• Continue as have been, make no changes
• Tailored and focused implementation of tactical
  tools as appropriate for Program component and
  Site social characteristics.

25
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Pursue a full community development (CD)
  strategy
• emphasize Cultural Process, pursue principles
  including
• Actively striving to increase comprehensive
  representation involvement
• Open process
• Consensus decision making
• Community members as decision makers, government
  agencies and non-governmental organizations as
  supporting resources
• Community members doing as much Program work as
  possible and
• Focus on developing community capacity through
  completing clean-up.
• Ideal seems unrealistic, at minimum, given legal
  responsibilities imposed on EPA CDPHE.

26
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Do not pursue CD approach, just do it --
• Not realistic Program needs support and help
  of community organizations, leaders, and
  residents to be effective and efficient.

27
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tailor and focused implementation
• Some of this is being implemented now
• Distinguish soils and CHP Program components
• Weight each differently on the CD and network
  spectrums for now

28
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tailor and focused implementation
• Soils program seems more appropriate for focused
  implementation effort
• Well developed,
• Clearly in implementation,
• Routinized,
• Primary tasks require big organizations with
  big resources,
• When soils are sampled and remediated, isnt this
  job done?

29
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tailor and focused implementation --
• CHP seems appropriate for a more CD, broader
  network approach
• Earlier stage of development, still somewhat
  formative,
• Not yet routinized,
• Some of the activities are suitable for community
  residents to perform,
• Job isnt done at end of Superfund
• Development of community capacity is critical to
  continue addressing the problems after EPA
• You promised!

30
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tactical Tools
• Work within The Process
• Improve communication, and community
  representation and involvement
• Continue refining information basis for your
  decisions
• Evaluate ask if you are using all the tools
  available to you as effectively as possible

31
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tactical Tools - Work within The Process
• Propose new initiatives to the Working Group for
  discussion and feedback?
• Strive for consensus on general principles, and
  that details will be developed by appropriate
  parties?
• Remind the group, politicly, of the legal and
  administrative parameters within which the
  Program Managers must work?

32
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tactical Tools - Improve communication, and
  community representation and involvement
• Proactively facilitate and maintain relationships
  among stakeholders
• Rotate each meeting through different
  neighborhoods
• Conduct each meeting in the evening so working
  site residents can attend and participate
• Improve credibility
• Conduct outreach and education redundantly
  because of the context

33
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tactical tools Continue refining information
  basis for your decisions
• Continue identifying and assessing stakeholders
• Develop more maps
• Complete matrix of individual X affiliations

34
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tactical tools Continue refining information
  basis for your decisions
• Continue identifying and assessing stakeholders
• Continue attempting contact to assess specific
  stakeholders who have not participated
• Continue snowball sample
• Identify new owners, gentry using other means

35
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tactical tools Continue refining information
  basis for your decisions
• Make some more maps
• Neighborhood boundaries
• Parcels of concern and status (sampled Y-N,
  results over or under threshold, remediated
  Y-N, landscaping completed Y-N, etc.)
• Household characteristics (e.g., owner-renter
  occupied children under/over threshold
  ethnicity)
• Community leaders addresses.

36
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tactical tools Continue refining information
  basis for your decisions
• Complete contingency table individuals X
  affiliations (neighborhoods, organizations,
  other?)
• Purpose is to identify Who is affiliated to what
  events, i.e., neighborhoods, organizations.
• Matrix as is demonstrates a lack of complete data
  -- doesnt identify all affiliations of each
  individual, and we have not identified a
  representative, or contact, for each organization
  type and specific organizations.
• Many gaps probably could be filled by DEH and
  EPA-CR staff to see real gaps.
• Table could be used to assist in targeting
  outreach.
• Prerequisite for mathematical analysis that could
  do this more precisely.

37
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Tactical tools Evaluate
• Ask if you are using all the general tools
  available to Program Managers as effectively as
  possible
• Elements of power in a network questions,
  examples
• Have you established a relationship with all the
  stakeholders youve identified, and using these
  relationships effectively?
• Are you using all sanctions and rewards?
• Are you as credible as possible?

38
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
39
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• A simplified view of the Site, its neighborhoods,
  and some stakeholders and their relationships and
  how soils might proceed
• Maybe this is way for soils to proceed.
• Can be experiment, maybe useful for CHP to use
  later.
• Raises questions, needs for additional
  information, but focuses these maybe Program
  Managers as a group can fill in the blanks to
  identify potential bridges.

40
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

• Meeting agenda
• Questions, answers, and discussion
• Decisions about next steps if any and, if so
• Action Plan, and next meeting.

41
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan