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

1. Stakeholder Action Plan:Vasquez Boulevard/I-70 Superfund Site Findings and Recommendations By George Weber 303/494-8572 * gw@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 Graphical Representation of Conceptual Model: Why & How Stakeholders Mobilize to Address A Problem Collaboratively 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.

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, analyst’s 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, didn’t • 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 Manager’s 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’ (Don’t 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’(‘Don’t 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, isn’t 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 isn’t 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 -- doesn’t 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 you’ve 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