EPA
Evaluation of the
Environmental Justice
Collaborative Model
Case Studies
4 September 2002
- - DRAFT - -
Do Not Cite or Quote
Prepared for the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
by the U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

-------
Executive Summary
In June 1999, the federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG)
began to develop the concept of an Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice
Action Agenda (Action Agenda) as a way of incorporating environmental justice in all policies,
programs, and activities of federal agencies. Finalized in May 2000, the Action Agenda seeks
to build dynamic and proactive partnerships that access the initiatives and resources of federal
agencies to improve the quality of life of minority and low-income communities that suffer
disproportionate environmental impacts.
To help implement the Action Agenda, the IWG selected fifteen IWG national
demonstration projects in June 2000. To be selected, projects had to represent areas that were
predominantly minority or low-income populations, be community-based and have strong
community interest. Further, projects were expected to have sufficient resources to carry out
the project, and have previously taken steps to address or seriously consider environmental
justice issues. Finally, projects were expected to be committed to using multi-stakeholder
collaborative problem-solving as a tool for addressing environmental justice issues and have the
commitment of at least two federal agencies to participate. Issues the projects sought to
address included air quality, contaminated site cleanup and redevelopment, lead abatement,
and others.
Following the designation of the projects, the IWG continued to champion collaboration
as an important tool for addressing environmental justice issues. Furthermore, the IWG began
articulating elements of success based upon the demonstration projects and past efforts that
used multi-stakeholder collaborative problem-solving around issues of environmental justice.
Committed to learn from use of "the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model" in the
demonstration projects, starting in November 2000, the IWG began working with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop an evaluation strategy. The plan eventually
included the development of six case studies for six demonstration projects, and a cross-case
study analysis. Data used to develop the case studies was generated through interviews of
partnership members conducted between September 2001 and April 2002, and document
review. Interview data was collected through use of a semi-structured, open-ended interview
guide. The case studies include:
¦	A multi-stakeholder partnership based primarily in an inner city community near
downtown San Diego that is addressing health concerns brought about by incompatible
land uses.
¦	A multi-stakeholder partnership focused on Southeast and Southwest Washington D.C.
championed by the Washington Navy Yard that is seeking to ensure that local
redevelopment efforts benefit local residents.
¦	A collaboration between a tribal community in Alaska and several federal agencies that
is working to ensure cleanup of over 80 contaminated sites on the community's home
island.
¦	A collaboration between federal agencies and several organizations based in East St.
Louis and surrounding communities that is taking a comprehensive approach to reducing
local threats from lead-poisoning.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
1
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
¦	A partnership between three rural communities, federal agencies, and other
organizations in southern Missouri that is taking a structured approach to addressing
local asthma, lead, and water quality issues.
¦	A partnership consisting of numerous groups and agencies and driven by a grassroots
group in Spartanburg, South Carolina that is seeking to cleanup contaminated and
abandoned sites and revitalize the nearby neighborhoods.
Following completion of the case studies, the cross-case study analysis was performed
that examined:
¦	Partnership opportunities for involvement, partnership activities, and partnership
outcomes;
¦	Key factors influencing collaborative partnership success;
¦	Value of multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships to address environmental justice
issues; and
¦	Value of federal agency involvement in these efforts.
Following these analyses, findings were developed based upon a review of the core
analytical sections and the six case studies. Findings describe the value of the Environmental
Justice Collaborative Model as applied in the six partnerships, value of federal involvement, and
specific factors contributing to progress and success of the partnerships applying the Model.
Core findings include the following:
The Environmental Justice Collaborative Model represents a transformative mechanism
for enabling communities and associated stakeholders to constructively address
complex and long-standing issues concerning environmental and public health hazards,
strained or non-existent relations with government agencies and other institutions, and
economic decline.
Partnerships applying the Model are generating a variety of positive outcomes for the
affected communities.
¦	The Model provides an important vehicle for the many institutions seeking to provide
community assistance but which lack effective mechanisms for doing so.
Recognizing a community's vision for redevelopment can also enable service providers
and program managers to tailor their programs and services to better suit community
needs, and save resources in the process.
¦	Several of these partnerships have and continue to face challenges in using the Model
to improve situations for the affected communities.
Organizational styles, policies, and procedures of the different partner members have
contributed to challenges for the partnerships.
The partnerships are successfully managing the challenges caused by the different
organizational styles, policies, and procedures of the different partner members.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
2
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Federal agencies have and continue to play key roles in partnerships using the Model.
Despite the positive roles of federal agencies, cooperation and coordination in support of
partnership efforts within and between federal agencies could be enhanced and made
more apparent to non-federal partners.
¦ Much of the success of these efforts can be attributed to individuals, either at the
community, regional NGO, or government level, who took it upon themselves, at real risk
of failure, to pull diverse groups together.
Recommendations follow that are intended for those actively participating in or
overseeing the partnerships, as well as institutions at all levels responding to environmental,
public health, and socio-economic challenges associated with community revitalization. Core
recommendations include the following:
Expand use of the EJ Collaborative Model. Government at all levels, community
organizations, faith groups, other NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and the business
community should review opportunities to initiate, support, and participate in
partnerships that apply the Model.
Link those involved in partnerships applying the Model into a national structure that
encourages cross-partnership learning and builds additional support.
Identify long-term opportunities for building partnership administrative and coordination
capacity with local colleges and universities, government agencies at all levels,
foundations, and non-governmental organizations.
Promote community-based leadership and organizational development at the local level
for communities applying the EJ Collaborative Model.
Focus attention on the environmental, public health, and socio-economic outcomes
produced by EJ collaborative partnership activities.
The IWG should work with organizations experienced in the evaluation of national
community revitalization efforts and community-based partnerships, as well as EJ
collaborative partnership leaders, to further the development of an assessment
framework for the EJ Collaborative Model as well as an action plan for implementing it.
Review opportunities to forge stronger links between established government
environmental programs that are critical to the cleanup and revitalization of
disadvantaged communities.
The IWG has played an important leadership role in supporting, nurturing, and promoting
partnerships applying the Model. However both current and future EJ collaborative
partnerships would benefit by expanded IWG support.
Systematically promote rigorous academic study and intellectual discourse around the
use of collaborative models to address environmental justice issues.
Do Not Cite or Quote.	3	Draft: 9.4.02

-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
4
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary	1
Table of Contents	5
Acknowledgements	8
1	Introduction	9
The Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice	9
Emergence of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model	10
Roots of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model	10
Overview of Case Study Development	11
Overview of Case Study Partnerships	13
Case Study Partnerships Summary.	15
2	Barrio Logan Partnership	n
Community History	17
Partnership Background	19
Partnership Activities	23
Measuring Partnership Success	24
Partnership Successes	24
Partnership Challenges	26
Interviewee's Recommendations for Improving the Partnership	26
Interviewee's Recommendations for Other Communities	27
Value of the Collaborative Partnership	28
Value of Federal Involvement In the Partnership	29
Key Findings (as of October 2001)	32
Afterword	32
3	Bridges to Friendship Partnership	35
Community History	35
Partnership Background	36
Partnership Process	37
Partnership Goals	39
Partnership Activities and Accomplishments	40
Measuring Partnership Success	42
Partnership Successes	42
Partnership Challenges	43
Interviewees' Recommendations for Improving the Partnership	44
Do Not Cite or Quote.	5	Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Interviewees' Recommendations for Other Communities Using Partnerships	45
Value of the Collaborative Partnership	45
Value of the Federal Involvement in the Partnership	46
Key Findings	47
4 Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership	49
Community History	49
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Background	50
MOU Work Group	51
Partnership Background and Goals	52
On-Going Issues Impeding Cleanup	53
Measuring Success	54
Partnership Successes	55
Partnership Challenges	55
Interviewees' Recommendations for Improving the Partnership	57
Interviewees' Recommendations for Other Communities Using Partnerships	57
Value of Collaborative Partnership	58
Value of Federal Involvement in Partnership	59
Key Findings	60
Afterword	61
5_ Metro East Lead Collaborative	63
Community History	63
Partnership Background	64
Partnership Process	65
Collaborative Goals	66
Collaborative Activities	67
Measuring Collaborative Success	68
Collaborative Successes	68
Collaborative Challenges	69
Interviewee's Recommendations for Improving the Partnership	70
Interviewee's Recommendations for Other Communities	71
Value of the Collaborative Partnership	71
Value of the Federal Involvement in the Partnership	72
Key Findings	73
6_ New Madrid Partnership	75
Community History	75
Do Not Cite or Quote.	6	Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Partnership Background	76
Partnership Goals and Process	78
Partnership Activities	79
Measuring Partnership Progress	81
Partnership Successes	81
Partnership Challenges	83
Interviewees' Recommendations for Improving the Partnership	84
Interviewees' Recommendations for Other Communities	84
Value of Collaborative Partnership	85
Value of Federal Involvement in the Partnership	85
Key Findings	87
7 ReGenesis Partnership	89
Community History	89
ReGenesis	90
Abandoned Arkwright Dump	90
Abandoned Fertilizer Plant	91
Operating Chemical Plant	92
Partnership Background	93
Partnership Goals	94
Project Activities	94
Measuring Success	95
Partnership Successes	96
Partnership Challenges	97
Interviewees' Recommendations for Improving the Partnership	98
Interviewees' Recommendations for Other Communities Using Partnerships	99
Value of Collaborative Partnership	99
Value of Federal Involvement in Partnership	100
Key Findings	102
Afterword	103
List of Interviewees	105
Copy of Interview Guide	107
Works Cited	111
Endnotes	119
Do Not Cite or Quote.	7	Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Acknowledgements
The Evaluation of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model and associated case
studies benefited from the assistance of several organizations and individuals. First, the strong
support and cooperation from the federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
and EPA's Office of Environmental Justice has been invaluable. Second, comments from
individuals who participated on the two national conference calls to discuss the evaluation effort
greatly assisted in improving the evaluation methodology. In addition, partnership leaders and
coordinators graciously helped to minimize the challenge of conducting interviews within
partnership communities across the United States. Furthermore, several partnership members
provided insightful comments, which greatly improved the quality of the case studies.
Finally, a special thanks to all partnership members who, through their thoughtful
reflections, recommendations, and critiques, helped provide a clearer understanding of what it
means to use multi-stakeholder collaboration as a tool for strengthening environmental
protection and improving the overall quality of life in the nation's distressed communities.
A team based in EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation performed this
evaluation. Eric Marsh was the project manager for this effort.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
8
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Introduction
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the federal government gave increasing attention to
issues of environmental justice. Grassroots protests and government and academic research
began to reveal how communities of color and low-income were faced with a disproportionate
share of unwanted land uses and suffered from disparities in environmental protection. As a
first response, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened the Office of
Environmental Equity in 1992, which became the Office of Environmental Justice. An important
effort emerging from this office was the creation of the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council—a federal advisory committee that consists of a range of stakeholders that provide
advice to EPA on environmental justice matters. In 1994, Executive Order 12898 was signed
which requires all federal agencies to ensure that issues of environmental justice are addressed
in all agency programs, policies, and procedures. In addition, the Order required the formation
of a federal interagency workgroup, chaired by EPA, to better ensure coordination across
federal agencies in resolving environmental justice issues. By 2000 several federal agencies,
along with an increasing number of state governments, local governments and members of the
business community1, had initiated programs or taken actions to remedy environmental justice
issues.
The Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
An important component of the federal effort to address environmental justice issues
was the development of the "Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action
Agenda" released in May 2000 by the federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental
Justice (IWG). The overarching goal of the Agenda is to build "dynamic and proactive
partnerships among Federal agencies to benefit environmentally and economically distressed
communities." In the Agenda the IWG stressed that that by working more effectively together,
federal agencies would "enhance identification, mobilization and utilization of Federal
resources...[enabling] distressed communities to improve environmental decision-making and
more efficiently access and leverage Federal government initiatives."2
To help implement the Action Agenda, the IWG selected fifteen IWG national
demonstration projects in June 2000. To be selected, projects had to represent areas that were
predominantly minority or low-income populations, be community-based and have strong
community interest. Further, projects were expected to have sufficient resources to carry out
the project, and have previously taken steps to address or seriously consider environmental
justice issues. Finally, projects were expected to be committed to using multi-stakeholder
collaborative problem-solving as a tool for addressing environmental justice issues and have the
commitment of at least two federal agencies to participate. Of the projects selected, most
centered on specific communities; however, three had particular states or regions as their focus
area and one focused on national tribal environmental justice policy. Some projects emerged
as a direct result of the IWG designation process, while others were already ongoing and were
selected to highlight their on-going commitments to multi-stakeholder collaboration. Issues the
projects sought to address included air quality, contaminated site cleanup and redevelopment,
lead abatement, and others.3 No federal awards were given as a result of IWG designation.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
9
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Emergence of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model
Less than a year following the designation of these projects, the International
City/County Management Association hosted a forum, sponsored by the Ford Foundation, that
brought together numerous stakeholders to discuss opportunities for collaboration, identify
elements for successful collaboration, and hear from different parties involved in three of the
IWG's national demonstration projects. Following this forum, the IWG continued to champion
collaboration as an important tool to address environmental justice issues. The IWG argued
that use of a multi-stakeholder collaborative effort can be an effective way to achieve
sustainable, quality-of-life improvements for affected communities in which issues have taken
"the form of intractable, multifaceted, and multi-layered disputes." The IWG explained that
championing collaboration at local levels, with federal agencies serving as partners, is a realistic
and necessary response to the on-going environmental justice issues facing affected
communities." By the time these issues are raised to the federal level, the IWG explained, they
typically "(1) cut across agency jurisdictions or areas of expertise; (2) involve many stakeholders
holding mutually inconsistent perspectives about the nature of the issues confronting them; and
(3) involve parties having longstanding, adversarial relationships."4 In its efforts to further
articulate an "environmental justice collaborative model" the IWG began articulating elements of
success based upon the demonstration projects and past efforts that used multi-stakeholder
collaborative problem-solving around issues of environmental justice. The IWG grouped
elements of success into five categories that include:
¦	Issue identification and leadership formation;
¦	Capacity- and partnership-building;
¦	Strategic planning and vision;
¦	Implementation; and
¦	Identification and replication of best practices.5
Since the designation of the national demonstration projects, various groups focused on
issues of environmental justice have endorsed their collaborative approaches to problem-
solving. In 2001, the National Environmental Policy Commission's Report to the Congressional
Black Caucus Foundation Environmental Justice Braintrust stated, "The IWG demonstration
projects are particularly significant. They point to the potential to problem-solve across
stakeholder groups in a constructive, collaborative manner, building relationships, avoiding
duplicated efforts, and leveraging instead of wasting resources.'6 Further, in June 2002, EPA's
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council recommended that EPA support advancement
of the IWG's Action Agenda "and its collaborative interagency problem-solving model as
exemplified in the fifteen demonstration projects."7 In April 2002, the IWG announced a second
round of nominations for projects working to address environmental justice concerns, and
expects to make selections by mid-November.8
Roots of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model
The Environmental Justice (EJ) Collaborative Model is built on lessons from many
existing comprehensive, collaborative efforts, such as the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative
in Boston, Massachusetts, and the programs of the Bethel New Life Community Development
Corporation in Chicago, Illinois.9 Other important influences include the National Advisory
Council on Environmental Policy and Technology's Integrative Environmental Justice Model
Demonstration Approach, developed in 1993, and the City of Clearwater, Florida's effort to
develop a model environmental justice strategic plan for brownfields redevelopment, begun in
Do Not Cite or Quote.
10
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
1996.10 What sets the EJ Collaborative Model apart from these efforts is its systematic
application on a national scale, through the IWG's national pilot projects and soon-to-be
announced revitalization projects, the concerted effort by federal agencies to serve as partners
in these projects, and, through enhanced federal participation and coordination, enable
communities to more easily access existing federal resources that enhance environmental
protection and community revitalization.
Overview of Case Study Development
Starting in November 2000, EPA's Evaluation Support Division in the Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation began working with the IWG to begin to develop an evaluation
strategy. The plan eventually included the development of six case studies for six
demonstration projects, and a cross-case study analysis. The remainder of this chapter is used
to describe the methods used to develop the six partnership case studies and to provide a brief
summary of each of the six cases.
Data used to develop the case studies was generated through a combination of data
collection approaches, including phone interviews, face-to-face interviews, and document
review. Interview data was collected through use of a semi-structured, open-ended interview
guide that was adapted when needed for the different partnerships.* Interview questions were
structured loosely on the program framework described below.
Objectives-* Process-»Outputs-» Institutional Effects-* Environmental Outcomest
t	t
External Factors
Figure 1. Steps in a Program Framework
A concerted effort was made to interview individuals that (1) possessed a strong
understanding of the partnership they were associated with; and (2) accurately reflected the
diversity of partnership interests. To identify interviewees, the evaluation team typically
developed a draft interviewee list based upon an initial review of partnership documents.
Partnership leaders were then asked to provide feedback on the potential interviewees and
suggest more suitable candidates if necessary. In total, the evaluation team conducted 66
separate interviews and a total of 79 individuals participated. Care was taken to work within the
constraints of the federal Paperwork Reduction Act. The distribution of interviewee type is
included below. In addition, given the high degree of federal involvement in these projects, the
distribution of interviewees by federal agency is also presented.
The six projects reviewed all had varying titles. Stakeholders referred to their projects as partnerships or projects,
and in some case cases stakeholders used both terms interchangeably when describing their respective projects.
Further, in one project, partners referred to the project effort as a collaborative. For consistency, the evaluation team
primarily refers to the projects as partnerships.
^ For the purposes of this figure, "environmental outcomes", are meant to include public health and quality of life
outcomes.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
11
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Interviewees by Organizational Type
Community / Non-profit
Local Government Official
State/Regional Government Official
Federal Official
Local Elected Official
Office of U.S. Congressional Official
Business/Industry
Academia
Project Consultant
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Interviewees
Chart 1. Interviewees by Organizational Type
Federal Interviewees by Organization
Army Corps of Engineers
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Coast Guard
Department of Defense
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Labor
National Park Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
01 23456789
Number of Interviewees
Chart 2. Federal Interviewees by Organization
Interviews were primarily conducted between mid-September and the first week of
October 2001. However interviews for two partnerships were conducted between late
November 2001 and April 2002. In addition, the evaluation team reviewed roughly 15 to 75
documents, depending upon availability, to develop each case study. These documents
included written community histories, formal project reports, fact sheets, site assessments,
environmental management plans, community planning documents, and news articles.
Case studies were structured to allow for cross-case analysis and included the following
sections: (1) community history, (2) partnership background, (3) partnership goals and process,
Do Not Cite or Quote.	12	Draft: 9.4.02

-------
(4) partnership activities, (5) measuring partnership success, (6) partnership successes and
challenges, (7) recommendations for improving the partnership, (8) lessons for other
communities considering partnerships, (9) value of federal involvement, and (10) findings. Parts
1-4 were mostly descriptive and relied primarily on background documents, while parts 5-10
relied on upon interviewee data. To conduct the data analysis using interview data, responses
to particular questions were reviewed to identify themes and patterns. Care was taken to
ensure that the comments carefully reflected the sentiment of the interviewees' and the degree
to which interviewees agreed with others on a particular topic.
Case study findings were based upon the interview data, the document review, and the
evaluators' overall impressions of each partnership. Interviewees were also given the
opportunity to review the case study describing their partnership and provide comments
regarding the case study's organization, content, accuracy, and readability. Case studies were
written with the understanding that the descriptions and analyses of interviewee comments
would reflect the state of the partnerships and interviewee perceptions about the partnerships at
a single point in time, and that the partnerships, and interviewees perceptions of them, would be
evolve even as the case studies were undertaken.
The case study partnerships were selected based upon several considerations including
the extent to which they represented an adequate level of geographic variability and adequate
variability in regards to the partnership types (both in terms of the partnership focus and the
demographic characteristics of the affected community). In addition, attention was placed upon
those partnerships that were more representative of those types of partnerships that the IWG
expects will be more commonly implemented in communities in the future.
Overview of Case Study Partnerships
The Barrio Logan Partnership is based primarily in an inner city community near
downtown San Diego. The partnership formed in 2001 as part of the IWG designation after
initial discussions between a senior EPA official and representatives of the Environmental
Health Coalition, a local environmental justice organization with a long-standing history of
working in the Barrio Logan community. Barrio Logan is faced with several challenges, most
notably incompatible land-uses brought about through lack of proper zoning restrictions that led
to the emergence of incompatible land uses near residential homes. Through a structured,
facilitated partnering process, the Barrio Logan partnership has brought together long-standing
adversaries together to discuss, form goals, and implement actions to address some of the
numerous quality of life issues facing the community.
The Bridges to Friendship Partnership emerged in 1998 out of concerns that a major
redevelopment effort in a distressed Washington, D.C. neighborhood would fail to benefit local
residents and could eventually result in their displacement. Initiated by community
organizations and officials at the Washington Navy Yard, these groups formed a structured but
flexible partnership involving numerous community non-profits, several federal agencies, and
the District of Columbia government to better ensure that local residents would benefit from the
redevelopment by coordinating, communicating, and pooling expertise and resources. With
over forty partners today, partnership members view this coordinated approach as an effective
way to conduct business and continue to search for opportunities to better serve local residents.
The Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership is a unique emerging collaboration
between the Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC), federal agency field staff in Alaska, and
federal headquarters staff based primarily in Washington D.C. to ensure the cleanup of over 80
primarily government contaminated sites on the MIC's home island in southeast Alaska.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
13
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Through these coordinated efforts, the parties hope to cleanup the sites in a manner that is
satisfactory to the Tribe, making more efficient use of resources, and map out a process for
cleanup of complex multi-party sites. The issues are complex given the numerous agencies
and other parties involved in the contamination, the different parties policies and procedures for
contaminated site cleanup, and disagreements over who should cleanup the sites and to what
level. The partnership effort began in 2000 after the designation by the IWG as a national
demonstration and built upon an on-going local collaboration primarily between the MIC and
Alaska federal agency field staff.
The Metro East Lead Collaborative is an effort that emerged after a local hospital and
government officials determined that high lead levels in children in East. St. Louis and
surrounding communities may be resulting from lead-contaminated soil. Recognizing the need
for a comprehensive approach to make effective use of the several organizations' knowledge
and resources already at work in the area on lead and related issues to reduce the threat, in
early 1999, an EPA representative brought these groups together to form a structured
partnership. Although initially focused on East St. Louis, the partnership effort soon expanded
its focus to other nearby neighborhoods. In addition, the enthusiasm over the partnership's lead-
reduction efforts spurred the partnership to begin simultaneously addressing brownfields
redevelopment.
The New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership resulted in 1998 after local residents
from one rural community in southern Missouri requested the assistance of the federal Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to help it tackle its numerous social, economic, and
environmental challenges. Responding to the call, NRCS joined together with EPA, a regional
non-profit, and two additional communities in the area to begin addressing common residential
concerns. Soon after the partnership was designated by EPA as a national Child Health
National Demonstration Project and these groups began taking a structured approach to
addressing asthma, lead, and water quality issues in the three communities. Since then, the
partners have made significant progress meeting their objectives outlined under the program.
The ReGenesis Partnership emerged in 1999 after the leader of a 1,400-member
group representing two distressed and adjacent neighborhoods in Spartanburg, South Carolina
brought together numerous stakeholders in an effort to cleanup and revitalize the area. By
building a shared vision for redevelopment, the energy and enthusiasm surrounding the effort
brought together approximately 70 organizations representing a range of interests seeking to
participate in the revitalization, which includes the cleanup and redevelopment of two Superfund
caliber sites, the building of a health clinic, a recreational greenway, new road construction, and
new affordable housing. Today, this loosely structured partnership is headed by Harold
Mitchell, the leader of ReGenesis, and guided by a core group including Mr. Mitchell, and
representatives of the City, the County, and EPA's regional office based in Atlanta, working
together with subcommittees to implement partnership goals.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
14
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Case Study Partnerships Summary
Partnership
Title
Partnership
Location
Demographics
of Affected
Community
Geographic
Characteristics
Year
Initiated
Partnership Focus
Barrio Logan
San Diego,
California
Predominantly
Latino/Low
income
Inner city
2000
Address immediate
health concerns/
Boost overall quality
of life
Bridges to
Friendship
Southeast/
Southwest
Washington,
D.C.
Predominantly
African
American/Low
income
Inner city
1998
Increase overall
resident employment/
Boost overall quality
of life
Metlakatla
Peninsula
Cleanup
Southeastern
Alaska
Native
American/Low
income
Rural/Island
2000
Cleanup
contaminated sites
Metro East
Lead
Collaborative
East St. Louis/St.
Clair County,
Illinois
African
American/Low
income
Inner City
2000
Improve children's
health by reducing
lead poisoning
New Madrid
Tri-Community
New Madrid
County, Missouri
African
American/
Caucasian/Low
income
Rural
1997
Address childhood
lead poisoning,
asthma and allergies,
and water
contaminants
ReGenesis
Spartanburg,
South Carolina
African
American/Low
income
Urban/Rural
1999
Address and
revitalize
contaminated sites
Table 1. Case Study Partnerships Summary
Do Not Cite or Quote.
15
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
16
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Barrio Logan Partnership
[This effort has] gotten people from these agencies talking and getting to know each
other which is critical.
We're talking about safety, housing, trucks, and all the things that are important to
the community.
Previous enemies are working together to figure out what they can do to fix the
problem instead of fighting.
I saw/ this partnership as an opportunity to break the cycle that had been going on for
the last 30-40 years.
— Interviewees, Barrio Logan Partnership
Community Historf
The City of San Diego is located on the southern California coast, less than fifteen miles
from the northern border of Mexico. Home to a diverse population of approximately 1.2 million
people1®, in February 2002, the City was named the most efficiently run city in California.2 The
Mayor's Office is currently engaged in efforts to improve overall quality of life for San Diegans,
focused on such goals as reducing traffic congestion, cleaning the area's bays and beaches and
enhancing San Diego's neighborhoods.3 Through San Diego's "City of Villages" initiative the
City hopes to help its historically and culturally distinct communities thrive by working with them
to address and integrate commercial, employment, housing, transit, and civic use needs.4
One San Diego community, where residents have been working for many years to
strengthen its neighborhoods and boost overall quality of life for residents, can be found near
the City's downtown area. Barrio Logan is a predominantly Latino community located on the
border of the industrialized portion of the San Diego Bay.5 Between 1910 and 1920, this area
saw a large influx of immigrants from Mexico wanting to escape Mexico's poor economy and
political turmoil.6 Following this migration, Barrio Logan transformed into one of the largest
Mexican-American communities in California7 and came to be known as "the historical and
symbolic center of the San Diego Chicano Community."8 As San Diego's downtown grew, and
both the state and the city began to modernize, however, Barrio Logan began experiencing a
series of fundamental changes.9 First, the revision of city zoning laws in the 1950s led to
industrial growth in the community and brought a series of junkyards sited nears schools and
homes10 as well as other industries, including plating, furniture, woodworking, auto body, and
welding shops,11 tanneries and canneries.12 Second, U.S. Interstate 5 was built in the early
1960s, which "physically divided the community and resulted in forced relocation of residents."13
Finally, in 1969, the Coronado Bay Bridge was constructed, leading to more displacement of
* Interviews for this case study were conducted primarily during the week of October 8, 2001. One
additional interview was conducted in late October. Twelve separate interviews were conducted and a
total of fourteen persons participated. Interviews were conducted with representatives of community
organizations, federal, state, and local government agencies, local business, and industry.
§ The current population total of the City of San Diego equals 1,223,400.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
17
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
residents and further community resentment.14 By 1979, Barrio Logan's population had fallen
from 20,000 to only 5,000.
Today, roughly 6,000 people reside in Barrio Logan, of which approximately 85 percent
are Hispanic.15 The community consists of a tightly concentrated mixture of homes, commercial
buildings, and industrial facilities, including a waterfront industrial and naval complex.16 Despite
a heavy concentration of industry, according to a California-based, independent non-profit
research report, only one percent of Barrio Logan residents have found employment at the
shipyard, while many find work cleaning homes or in San Diego's downtown restaurants and
hotels.17 Unemployment is significantly greater than the city average,18 and 40 percent of
households earn incomes below the state's poverty level.19 Moreover, Barrio Logan residents
struggle with antiquated, inadequate and poorly maintained housing, overburdened schools,
and insufficient health care and social services.20 In addition, Barrio Logan residents are faced
with a myriad of environmental health issues. Today, nearly 3,000,000 pounds of toxic
pollutants are emitted from facilities in the community, children exhibit an incidence of asthma at
over twice the rate of the national average,21 and the region's respiratory health hazard index is
100-200 times above acceptable standards.22 In addition, residents are faced with pollutants
from a high volume of commuter and truck traffic.
Despite its many obstacles, Barrio Logan residents have kept a strong sense of
community and continued to push for improvements. This is perhaps best symbolized by an
event in 1970 in which Barrio Logan residents resisted efforts by the California Highway Patrol
to build a parking lot on land underneath the Coronado Bay Bridge that had previously been
designated by the City to become a community park.23 Born out of many years of negative
relations between the community and the City,24 these actions eventually resulted in the
establishment of Chicano Park, which became famous for its collection of murals,25 and other
programs and initiatives including the Chicano Community Clinic and the Chicano Park Steering
Committee.26
By the mid-1970s, residents, along with businesses and the City had begun to work
together in an effort to boost the quality of life in the community.27 An example of such an effort
was the development of Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan, adopted by the City Council,
which called for a series of improvements in the community, including zoning and land use
changes.28 Despite activity within the community and the plan's call for new zoning in the
community, change has not come quickly. For instance, the new redevelopment zone
recommended in the Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan was not established until 199129
and only included a portion of Barrio Logan.30 Moreover, neither the new zone nor subsequent
zoning amendments eliminated the mixed industrial-residential land use pattern in Barrio
Logan.31 Nevertheless, residents and different organizations continued to move forward on
numerous fronts to improve Barrio Logan's quality of life and reduce the threat from air pollution.
For instance, in another effort to stop incompatible land uses, community residents and a local
environmental justice organization active in the Barrio Logan area, the Environmental Health
Coalition, pressured the City of San Diego Land Use and Housing Committee to pass a
measure in 1994 calling for the relocation of the chrome plating shops and chemical distribution
facilities from Barrio Logan.32 Similarly, in 1996, the City of San Diego along with the Barrio
Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team developed the Barrio Logan Revitalization Action Plan,
which, among several other action items, suggested that the City relocate existing polluting
facilities to areas where they would not pose a risk to sizeable populations.33 Despite these
actions by the City, not one of the polluting facilities has yet been relocated from the area.34
Another initiative was an effort by the California Air Resources Board to do extensive
testing for air pollution and health effects in partnership with several stakeholders in the
Do Not Cite or Quote.
18
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
community.35 Others include a major multi-year study being conducted in cooperation with the
University of Southern California, the Environmental Health Coalition, and a local health clinic to
assess how air pollution in Barrio Logan may be linked to certain illnesses; and an effort
sponsored by the local American Lung Association chapter to reduce incidences of asthma
among asthmatic children in schools.36
Partnership Background
Although these and other initiatives were underway in the late 1990s to address different
concerns of the community, and Barrio Logan's sister community of Logan Heights, most
operated independently of each other. Project organizers did not regularly consult with one
another to complement efforts, share lessons learned, and avoid project duplication. Further,
despite the many efforts, community concerns were not being fully addressed. For example,
some residents wanted neighborhood truck traffic, which passes by a local elementary school,
rerouted, or speed limits lowered, to better ensure the safety of their children as they walked to
and from school. Others were concerned about Barrio Logan's many vacant and abandoned
properties. Based upon these observations, a senior advisor working out of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Border Office in San Diego, who has since retired, sought
an opportunity to help meld the many positive Barrio Logan initiatives into a more
comprehensive community development approach.
In early 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official applied to have Barrio
Logan designated as a national Environmental Justice Pilot Project, sponsored by the federal
Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Environmental Justice, hoping that this effort would
provide a forum for all the efforts underway in Barrio Logan to come together and bring
additional resources and national attention to the community. In May 2000, the IWG selected
Barrio Logan to be one of the fifteen national pilot projects. Following this, the EPA official
asked the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), an organization with a strong tradition of
working with the Barrio Logan community, to serve with EPA as the project co-leads. EHC,
however, was not quick to accept, concerned that participation in such a collaborative approach
would curtail the organization's ability to participate in certain activities, such as community
demonstrations, and ultimately limit its authority to advocate for the Barrio Logan community.
Despite these reservations, EHC determined that the pilot project's potential to bring additional
resources to the community outweighed the organization's initial concerns.
After agreeing to share leadership roles, EPA and EHC began developing a strategy to
bring the organizations such as local industries, businesses, government agencies and
community groups together and build a collaborative partnership. The pre-planning team
realized that this would be a difficult endeavor since several potential members would find it
difficult to work in concert due to past or present disputes, some involving litigation. For
instance, several organizations, agencies, and industries have differing perspectives regarding
the validity of data collected from local air monitoring stations and whether those results suggest
that the local population suffers from disproportionately greater exposure to air emissions than
other comparable groups. Recognizing the difficulties, EPA and EHC made the decision to hire
a professional facilitator to help guide the collaborative process.** One was selected with prior
experience working in the Barrio Logan community, and over the next several months, EPA,
EHC and the facilitator began framing the focus of the partnership and determining how best to
build an effective partnership.
The facilitator, funded by EPA, represents the company of Katz and Associates.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
19
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
In November 2000, EPA and EHC held the kick-off session for the Barrio Logan
Demonstration Project. Several organizations already working on projects in the area, whom
the pre-planning team had previously identified, attended the session. During the meeting, the
pre-planning team emphasized that the project would last two-years, be results-oriented, and
would "focus on addressing incompatible land use practices, unacceptable air quality, and
associate health impacts for the residents of Barrio Logan."37 Due to the interest expressed by
organizations in attendance, the pre-planning team chose to continue the partnership building
process and formally request that all interested organizations apply to join the Barrio Logan
Demonstration Project,38 even those previously identified. No organization would be
guaranteed acceptance into the partnership. In January 2001, EPA and EHC made this request
in a letter sent to potential partners. An excerpt is included in the box below:
Excerpt from EHC & EPA Letter Asking Potential Partners to
Consider Joining the Barrio Logan Demonstration Project
This letter is to solicit your organization's interest in being a partner in this Demonstration
Project and to outline the criteria for being invited as a partner. We are looking for a diverse
group of partners, including federal, state, and local governments, business and industry,
academic institutions, social justice groups, health promotion and community-based
organizations. Based on the interest expressed at the first meeting and since then, we have set
forth a process for selection of partners that will ensure that the group is as inclusive as possible
and is committed to achieving common goals. We need to emphasize that the Demonstration
Project is not an advisory group nor a discussion group, it is a working partnership with people
committed to solving problems in Barrio Logan.
Included in the letter were four questions designed to enable the pre-planning team to better
determine whether interested recipients would be asked to participate in a partnering session to
be held at the end of January. The questions are listed below.39
Excerpt from EHC & EPA Letter Asking Potential Partners to
	Justify Why They Would Make an Effective Partner	
1.	Does your organization agree with the problem and goal statements on the attached
sheet? (All project partners must fundamentally agree with these statements in order to
participate in the project)
2.	What is your organization's primary interest and/or priority for this project?
3.	What value (resources or technical assistance) will your organization add to this effort?
4.	Who will serve as your organization's representative? Please provide his/her name and
contact information.
After receiving application letters and making decisions about who should be asked to
participate, the partnering session, hosted by the Mercado Tenants Association in Barrio Logan,
was held. The Association provided meeting space, language translation, and information to
Barrio Logan residents affected by the demonstration project. The "One-Day Partnering
Workshop" focused on outlining roles, responsibilities, partnership obligations and planned and
potential partnership activities.40 Further, the workshop gave potential partners an opportunity
to shape the Partnering Agreement, a draft of which had been crafted by the pre-planning team,
Do Not Cite or Quote.
20
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
that was designed to create an arena of respect where partners could communicate and work
together as equals.
Specifically, the Partnering Agreement provided background on the project and outlined
key problem and goal statements for the project, and roles for both the project leads and project
partners necessary to achieve project goals. The key problem and goal statements are included
in the table below.41
Key Problem and Goal Statements
Outlined in the Barrio Logan Partnering Agreement
Problem
Goal
Emissions of air pollution and toxins from local
industries, small businesses, automobiles, and diesel
vehicles in Barrio Logan and Logan Heights pose
unacceptable health risks to local residents.
Reduce exposure of residents to air
pollution.
Incompatible land use in zoning in Barrio Logan and
Logan Heights exposes residents to increased risks
of hazardous materials accidents and health impacts
from air toxic emissions.
Reduce incompatible land uses in
Barrio Logan and Logan Heights.
Children's health is a concern for local residents due
to ambient environmental factors as well as risks
within the home and schools such as lead-based
paint and other sources of indoor air pollutants.
Improve children's health by improving
the ambient environment, as well as
reducing exposure of children to health
risks within the home, schools, and the
community.
Roles of the project leads, as outlined in the Partnering Agreement, included (1) providing
meeting notes; (2) maintaining the project web site; (3) complying with evaluation and reporting
requirements of the demonstration project; (4) coordinating funding requests; and (5) preparing
meeting summaries. Some of the roles of the partners included (1) staying committed to project
success; (2) sharing data and information to assist partners and help the overall project meet its
goals; (3) coordinating activities that could potentially complement or conflict with each other; (4)
identifying obstacles to achieving project goals and developing solutions to overcome them; and
(5) thinking creatively about how partners can collaboratively make a difference in the health
and wellbeing of the Barrio Logan community.42 In addition to describing the goals and roles,
the Partnering Agreement also outlined several steps that would be taken in the event of
disagreements between partners. The section describing these steps is included in the box
below.43
Do Not Cite or Quote.
21
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Excerpt from the Barrio Logan Partnering Agreement describing the
Partnership's Conflict Resolution Process
In the course of partnership activities, disagreements will inevitably arise regarding whether a
course of action should or should not be taken. The Partners agree to work in a collaborative
fashion and to facilitate consensus on these issues whenever possible. If consensus cannot be
reached, the Partners agree to use mediation to attempt to reach a resolution. Further, the
Partners agree they will attempt to resolve the disagreement expeditiously and constructively to
benefit Project goals. In the event of an impasse, the co-leads shall be the final decision
makers, carefully weighing the consequences of any decision to take action where there is a
lack of consensus. If the co-leads cannot agree, then the action in question would not be taken.
In any event, individual Partners cannot be compelled to participate in an action to which they
do not agree. Individual Partners may also abstain from participation in a decision when they
believe it would be inappropriate for them to do so.
Following the partnering
workshop, each potential partner was
required, as a condition of participation
in the partnership, to agree to
statements put forth in the Partnering
Agreement. By signing the document,
partners were expected to show that
they could look beyond the past, and
"work together to demonstrate how
agencies and communities working in
concert can achieve meaningful
improvements in public health for
communities such as Barrio Logan."44
A diverse collection of partners
ultimately signed the agreement.
These	included	eighteen
representatives from the city, county
state, and federal government,
community-based organizations,
industry, a business association,
environmental and public health
groups, and the San Diego Port
District. Several organizations decided
they could not agree with or sign the
Partnering	Agreement.
Representatives of these groups,
however, were allowed to attend
subsequent meetings and participate
as observers. These included
representatives from a local college,
the San Diego School District, and
offices of local and U.S. politicians. The
list of organizations is included in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Barrio Logan Partnership
Partners and Observers
Active
American Lung Association
California Air Resources Board
California Department of Transportation
California Environmental Protection Agency
City of San Diego-Traffic Division
Environmental Health Coalition
Inner City Business Association
Katz and Associates
MAAC Project
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
Mercado Tenant's Association
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
San Diego City Attorney
San Diego Housing Commission
San Diego Unified Port District
South West Marine, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Observers
Barrio Logan College Institute
City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency
Congressman's Bob Filner's Office
County of San Diego
County of San Diego Health and Human Services
Mayor Dick Murphy's Office
Private Citizen
San Diego City Councilmember Inzunza's Office
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
San Diego Unified School District
Supervisor Greg Cox's Office
Do Not Cite or Quote.
22
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
After participants were officially accepted into the partnership, workgroups were
developed for each of the goal statements. Each workgroup was asked to develop a matrix of
options and prioritize actions that would be taken to achieve the goals. These actions
were to lead to the development of a single partnership action plan. Although the process was
straightforward, partners experienced difficulties in prioritizing actions. Nevertheless, by May
2001, a sprit of collaboration had developed between the different parties and a foundation for
partnering had been built, evidenced by the sharing of meals during regular meetings. n 45 An
initiative that grew out of cooperation between two very distinct organizations starting in the late
spring of 2000 had transformed into a genuine partnership by the spring of 2001. The evolution
of the Barrio Logan partnership is depicted in the graphic below.
Figure 2. EPA Representation of the Barrio Logan Partnership
Evolution of the Barrio Logan Partnership
October 2001
F = Facilitator
Partnership Activities
By October 2001, the partnership was still undergoing a process of determining which
actions should be taken to help the partnership reach the three main goals. Nonetheless, even
to this point, the partnership had engaged in activities that would help the partnership members
realize their goals. For example, the partnership had identified partners that many in the
partnership had not previously known, including the Inner City Business Association and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).46 Second, several partners had
been actively involved in the solicitation of resources to benefit Barrio Logan residents. For
instance, as of May 2001, four partners (EHC, the City of San Diego, MAAC Project, and HUD),
were working together to obtain a Lead Hazard Control Grant that would provide Barrio Logan
with $1 million to remedy lead-contaminated soil and dust in homes.47 In addition to securing
funding through grants, several persons were contributing varying portions of their staff or
volunteering to support the project.
The following sections primarily describe interviewees' responses to questions gathered
from interviews conducted by EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation during the
week of October 8-12, 2001. The sections focus on interviewees' impressions regarding
measuring partnership success, identifying successes and challenges, recommendations for
n Meetings are held at The Mercado or at the Logan Heights Police Department. Meetings are generally
held during the day; however, as of October 2001, the Partnership was considering changing the meeting
time to boost participation from community residents.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
23
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
improving the partnership, overall value of the partnership, and the value of federal involvement
in the partnership.
Measuring Partnership Success
As of October 2001, the partnership had not developed a framework for measuring the
overall success of the partnership in meeting the three goals. However, the three goals agreed
upon by the partners should serve as a critical basis from which the partnership can begin
assessing partnership progress and success once activities are decided upon and implemented.
Further, when asked how the partners might determine success, the fourteen interviewees
addressing this topic had several suggestions—some focusing on general measurement
considerations, and others focusing on specific indicators to measure. Regarding general
considerations, three interviewees urged the need to be specific about what gets measured.
For instance, one remarked that any measurement must focus on what the partnership can
accomplish. Regarding the type of data that should be collected-quantitative or qualitative—
one interviewee recommended that quantitative data be collected - through pre- and post-tests.
Another, however, cautioned the use of quantitative data, suggesting that it may result in
harmful disputes between partners.
Specific indicators recommended for measurement focused on such topics as public
health improvement, community improvement (e.g., quality of life), and community
empowerment. Suggestions for public health indicators included the extent to which schools in
the area participate in the Open Airways and Tools for Schools programs and the extent to
which trucks are re-routed or some people are relocated away from truck routes. However,
another interviewee recommended that the rerouting of trucks not be considered an indicator of
project success. Suggestions for community improvement indicators centered mainly on the
extent to which the partnership results in a better quality of life for the community. Suggestions
for community empowerment indicators included the extent to which the community becomes
part of partnership solutions, the number of community plans adopted by the city government,
and the extent to which community residents take ownership over the partnership.
Partnership Successes
When asked if partners were satisfied with their ability to participate in the project
decision-making process, twelve of the twelve interviewees who addressed the question
responded positively. One noted that the process has given everyone a voice, and another
remarked that she/he actually looks forward to the meetings. Three interviewees, however,
qualified their remarks. Two noted that no major decisions had been made yet, and another
remarked that while the process has been fine so far, it was still too early on in the process to
genuinely judge.
Regarding whether interviewees were satisfied to the extent issues most important to
them and their organizations were being addressed by the partnership, most indicated they
were satisfied; however several qualified their remarks. Five out the eleven who addressed the
question said yes, without providing any qualifying remarks. For instance, one mentioned that
the partners "are talking about safety, housing, trucks, and all the things that are important to
the community." Two additional interviewees indicated that their issues were being addressed,
but only to a limited extent. For example, one remarked that the zoning issues were not being
addressed to the extent they should be. Two interviewees were less satisfied—one noting it
was too early to tell, and another stating that his/her issues had not yet been addressed.
Another flatly stated that his/her issues were not being addressed. Finally, one interviewee
Do Not Cite or Quote.
24
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
remarked that his/her organization did not join the process to address a particular issue, rather,
they joined to "participate in the process... [and] do [their] share."
When asked about the outcomes, or results, of the partner activities for addressing the
main issues of the affected community, not surprisingly seven of the ten addressing this
question remarked that is was too early to tell.** For instance, one interviewee remarked that
the Partnership was still identifying problems. However, four interviewees indicated that the
Partnership is already having a positive impact for the affected community. These include:
agencies becoming more familiar with each other; enhancement of community pride; community
empowerment; the highlighting of important health issues in the affected community; and a
more coordinated community development. Even some who indicated it was too early to judge
the outcomes of the Partnership activities, later noted some positive outcomes. For example,
one noted that bringing these organizations has resulted in a greater rate of accomplishment.
When asked whether interviewees were satisfied with the outcomes of partner activities,
nine of the eleven addressing this question indicated that they were satisfied. One indicated
that she/he was very, very satisfied. Another indicated that the Partnership had produced
positive dialogue and relationship building. Two indicated they were satisfied but would like to
see more tangible efforts being made to assist the community. Two others who were satisfied
also explained that the process was slow, with one noting that this was expected. The one
interviewee who was unsatisfied remarked that the process was moving too slowly. A final
interviewee provided an ambiguous response.
When asked what has been there greatest success thus far, nine of the fourteen
interviewees addressing this question referenced the partnership itself. For instance, one
interviewee stressed that the partnership had brought diverse groups of people together,
including some who were previously adversaries. When asked what had been the key factors
contributing to the partnership's development, interviewees cited the Partnering Agreement, the
facilitator, and EHC's and EPA's leadership roles. Specifically, one noted that both
organizations were able to get involved without being accusatory. Another also remarked that
the two organizations' outreach to potential partners had been important for the partnership's
development. This same interviewee also suggested that another key factor was the
willingness of different groups to participate in the process.
Another interviewee suggested "the fact that people have been able to set aside what
goes on outside the partnership and still participate in good faith to bring results to Barrio
Logan" as a critical success. Reasons for this success include obtaining partnership agreement
on the goals, the partnering session, the Partnering Agreement, and the absence of participants
that could harm the process. Finally, one interviewee cited the partnership's ability to keep the
partnership's diverse members interested and talking with one another as the partnership's
greatest success. In addition, three remarked that it was still too early to tell what the
partnership's greatest success was.
Interviewees were also asked whether the organizational styles and procedures of the
different partner organizations limited effective collaboration between partners. Participants
rarely pointed to specific problematic organizational styles. Instead interviewees commented
primarily on inter-group dynamics. Three interviewees explained that there seemed to be a
strong willingness to work together within the partnership. For instance one stated that
During the interview process, interviewees were asked questions about both the outcomes of partner activities, and
the impact of activities for the affected communities. From the responses, it was clear that most interviewees viewed
the partnership activities in terms of outcomes, not impact. Therefore, the term outcome is used throughout this
discussion.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
25
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
"everybody adopted the can-do attitude and they knew that they had different opinions and tried
not to let this interfere with how these groups approached [the partnership]." Two additional
interviewees indicated, however, that, despite a willingness to work together, some barriers still
existed. For example, one explained that industry participants have a different decision-making
style than EHC, whose style is more "community inclusive."§§ Two others mentioned that
potential partners that would have found it difficult to participate chose not to sign the Partnering
Agreement. However, one of these same interviewees indicated that it was too early to truly tell
if barriers between partners would arise. Similarly, another remarked that conflict might
certainly occur in the future, as does with all large groups; however, she/he further indicated that
this could be constructive. In addition, two interviewees were concerned about the motives
behind some groups' participation, and one was concerned about not being able to enroll the Air
Pollution Control District as a partner.
Nine of the fourteen interviewees who addressed existing organizational barriers
between partners referenced the facilitator as a main reason for enabling partnership members
to work together. One interviewee noted that the facilitator fostered a "let's work together" spirit
amongst the partners. Another noted that "without [the facilitator] this group would not be able
to exist." Of the four not referencing the facilitator, three specifically referenced the Partnering
Agreement as an important tool for enabling the different organizations to work together. One
interviewee did remark, however, that to improve collaboration, a more active facilitator was
needed.
Partnership Challenges
When asked about the greatest challenges facing the partnership, interviewees
produced a variety of responses. Four of the fourteen who addressed the question indicated
that agreeing to and then implementing actions to address the goals is the partnership's most
significant challenge. Similarly, one interviewee noted that the biggest obstacle is simply
accomplishing a tangible activity. She/he went on to say that the partnership "was trying to
jump too far", instead of taking calculated steps. Further, the interviewee expressed frustration
at the partnership's desire to address issues that she/he felt could not be accomplished in a
short term such as the re-routing of trucks. A set of interviewees cited the partnership's slow
nature as a major obstacle. For instance, one noted this presented a problem since partners
must answer to their organizations, which represent different goals and interests, and justify
their time committed to the partnership. Another cited the partnership's lack of a mandate or
enforcement authority as an obstacle. To overcome this, she/he suggested getting the Mayor
and city government more involved in the process. Other difficulties cited included:
"synchronizing" participants so that they share a common base of understanding about the
issues of concern; deciding how to relocate businesses away from residences and businesses;
keeping key decision makers involved in the partnership; ensuring greater community
engagement in partnership planning and implementation; a need for funding, especially for
mailing, coordination, and translation activities; trust issues; and developing and implementing
initiatives through a group consisting of volunteers.
Interviewee's Recommendations for Improving the Partnership
When interviewees were asked how the partnership could be improved, six of the twelve
addressing the question recommended that the community be more involved in partnership
activities. Some interviewees were not convinced that the residents have enough information
§§ This interviewee did note, however, that the facilitator developed a decision-making process that
addressed these concerns.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
26
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
about the partnership and what the partnership is trying to accomplish. Further, although these
interviewees believed they were working to improve the quality of life for the residents of Barrio
Logan, they felt that residents should be more involved in how that happens. One interviewee
remarked that "the community is not involved as much because they have not been asked.
However, if asked, they will help." To obtain greater participation, one interviewee suggested
hosting partnership meetings at churches and the Barrio College, and at times when residents
can more easily attend. Another interviewee recommended that partnership members go out
into the community, visiting residents and companies in order to better understand what their
concerns are. She/he concluded by stating that "sometimes [the partnership's] views are
different from the people that live here." Directly related to community involvement, another
interviewee recommended that the partnership make greater use of simultaneous translation in
partnership meetings, because without it, some residents are excluded.
Four interviewees stressed the need to engage in activities that will produce real results.
For instance, one urged the partnership to "pick a goal that will lead to tangible change."
Closely associated with this recommendation, one interviewee recommended that the
partnership develop a workplan. Closely related to this recommendation, another urged that the
partnership meet more frequently to ensure that partnership initiatives are planned.
A group of comments related to organizational structure and representation. Three
interviewees recommended that the partnership be divided into sub-groups to improve
partnership efficiency. Another recommended that partners be re-evaluated, particularly to
better understand those that are active. Further, she/he added that the partnership should
identify a clear leader, noting that "you can play a football game without a lineman, but you can't
play football without a quarterback." In addition, two argued that the partnership needed the
support of the City, and another added that the partnership needed members "with the authority
to participate." Additional recommendations included: using a more aggressive facilitator;
obtaining a letter from U.S. EPA's Administrator recognizing the Barrio Logan partners for their
work in the area; encouraging partners to make more resources and educational opportunities
available to the community; hosting a community health fair; and securing more funding for the
partnership.
Interviewee's Recommendations for Other Communities
Twelve interviewees offered suggestions for other communities interested in using
collaborative partnerships to address EJ issues. One set of comments focused on building the
partnership. Four comments encouraged partnership builders to focus on community
involvement in the partnership's formative stages. Specifically, two recommended that the
community should be brought into join the partnership first. One of these recommended that the
community be allowed to define the problems and be involved in decision making. Four
additional comments recommended locating potential partners who are leaders and/or action
oriented, with one directly urging partnerships to screen out those potential partners who are not
inclined to participate. As stated by one interviewee:
Get as many people to the table as possible - the key players. Do
whatever it takes to get the key players. Have some public notices. Let
them know there's a group out there and they are looking for input. Get the
elected representatives at the table-the council, the city planning
[department], the state and city representatives. Getting these folks in and
partnering. You need the political will. Need power to make changes. Get
as many interested partners as possible—people that can actually do
something.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
27
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Other recommendations regarding this topic included identifying partners that would be affected;
ensuring that a full spectrum of stakeholders are involved; and encouraging as many
organizations as possible to participate.
A second set of comments focused on how to create a genuine collaborative process.
Two interviewees recommended using a partnering agreement. According to one, a partnering
agreement helps to remove conflict. Similarly, one recommended making sure that all partners
start from the "same page" and another recommended obtaining "buy-in" from all partners.
Related, another interviewee recommended that a facilitator skilled in conflict resolution be
brought in to guide the process after a thorough community assessment has been performed to
help define the problems the partnership will address. Further, one interviewee stressed the
need to "get people involved in a positive way from the beginning" and avoid bringing up history.
Once a partnership has been brought together, one interviewee stressed that it is
important to obtain specific commitments from partners. Another recommended that partners
develop realistic expectations about what each of the participating organizations can do, noting
explicitly that "resources these groups may bring may not be funding." Other recommendations
included having patience, focusing on achievable goals since it is very important to see
identifiable change in community, and providing resources for translation.
A final set of comments stressed the need for partnerships to incorporate a mechanism
that will truly empower them. One interviewee remarked that partnerships such as Barrio
Logan's lack power. To boost the power of a partnership, one recommended building alliances
with local planning bodies, noting that local officials don't often go against the wishes of local
planning bodies. A second suggested that for partnerships to have genuine power, they may
need to be built using a top-down approach.
Value of the Collaborative Partnership
When asked about the value of the collaborative process used by the partnership, of the
fourteen addressing the question, nine remarked that the collaborative process had added
value, three indicated that it was too early to tell, and one remarked that she/he could not speak
on behalf of the community. Five interviewees explicitly referenced information sharing. The
information shared by the partners is not only seen as a resource, as in the sharing of expertise,
it also enables more effective partnership planning. For instance, one remarked that
involvement in the partnership has required agencies to reveal where they stand publicly on
different issues. Further, another interviewee suggested that the partnership allows the partners
and the community to understand what each agency can and cannot do, to see their areas of
expertise and their limitations. Additionally, she/he added that many of the agencies, such as
the planning department, the air district, and CALTRAN, seem to be natural partners, and sitting
at the same table allows them to see how they can work together. The process of seeing how
different groups can work together, "leaves the participants empowered."
Two interviewees noted that having the representatives from the different organizations
leave their offices to physically view this community and understand the needs of the residents
has been very valuable. According to one, this would not have happened without the
partnership. Further, this same interviewee added that this process of interacting with different
groups in the community would result in the breakdown of negative stereotypes surrounding
small businesses.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
28
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Two other interviewees cited the ability of the partnership to create change as its main
value. One stated that the value has come from the partnership's ability to engage those that
have the ability and authority to make changes to benefit the Barrio Logan community. Another
indicated that although she/he can't prove it yet,
the value [of the partnership] is we've set the stage and foundation of
synergizing for addressing the community issues. [The partnership] in a
position to affect some changes with the city or city council that will have
some long-range impacts in the community. Some resources have come
the communities' way and if they can focus their energies they could get
more. They can leverage this partnership to get more.
Additional value of the partnership cited by some interviewees includes: the securing of some
additional resources for the community; the potential to leverage more resources; and a
reduction in duplication of resources.
When asked if they thought the Barrio Logan community could use this same
collaborative process to address similar problems in the future, seven of the thirteen addressing
the question said yes, two said no, and four said they didn't know. For those responding yes,
four remarked that strong leadership would be needed to make the process work, particularly
local leadership. For those responding that they did not know, one interviewee remarked that
the partnership might leave a core group in place. Another remarked that this type of process
would only be used in the future if the Barrio Logan partnership produces tangible results. For
those responding no, one interviewee voiced a concern that the current partnership would end if
EPA and EHC were to leave the process. Further, she/he indicated that it would be very hard to
pull a community coalition together. The other interviewee indicated that this process would not
be used again because the community has not been effectively involved. However, she/he
qualified her remark noting that if the community was brought into this process, the partnership
could become an important conduit for change.
When asked whether the main issues affecting Barrio Logan would have been
addressed without the use of a collaborative approach, responses were very mixed. Of the ten
who addressed the question, two indicated yes, two indicated somewhat, two indicated probably
not, three indicated unclear, and one indicated no. Of those indicating yes, one remarked that
different agencies would address the issues; the other mentioned, similarly, that the issues
would be dealt with through a piecemeal approach. The interviewee noting that the issues
probably would not have been dealt with mentioned that the issues would have either been
addressed contentiously or not at all. The interviewee indicating that issues would not have
been dealt with remarked that any attempt to address them would have been too fragmented
and resulted in too many disputes.
Value of Federal Involvement In the Partnership
When asked what was the effect of having federal partners participate in the partnership,
eleven of the fourteen interviewees addressing the question indicated that federal involvement
did, indeed, add value; two were unclear; and one indicated that federal partners did not provide
value, except for name recognition. Of the eleven indicating value, five interviewees stated that
federal partners brought credibility/legitimacy to the project. For instance, one remarked that
federal partners make "local entities feel more accountable, like someone outside San Diego is
looking at what they are doing." Four indicated that the federal partners have brought much
needed resources to the project, including the sharing of information. One non-federal
interviewee remarked that "the [federal government] brings a lot of resources. The federal
Do Not Cite or Quote.
29
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
government is a very large resource. It's up to us to utilize those resources." Two mentioned
that federal involvement has brought a sharp focus to the environmental justice issues in the
area, with one noting that federal involvement encouraged state and local governments to
acknowledge the environmental justice issues in the area. Two additional interviewees
remarked that the personal skills EPA's former senior advisor brought to the project were critical
for project success. In addition, one remarked that the fact that the partnership had federal
partners was essential to one company's participation. Interviewees also indicated that
involvement of federal partners would result in the partnership having a larger impact and higher
status. Finally, one interviewee stated that having federal partners involved was very important.
Concerns regarding federal involvement were also raised. Two interviewees remarked
that federal agency involvement in the partnership discouraged some potential partners from
joining. Another remarked that along with federal involvement might come expectations that
cannot be met. A non-federal interviewee noted that EPA's reputation could be damaged if the
project fails. Another interviewee remarked that federal partners have not interacted with the
community, and the community feels that it has little say regarding federal agency activities. In
addition, one noted that, although, she/he is excited by federal participation, the federal partners
may be difficult to work with because of their bureaucracies. Finally, another interviewee noted
that the community might not regularly distinguish between federal and state partners.
When interviewees were asked what they thought the federal agencies gained from the
partnership, seven of the fourteen addressing the question stated that it gave them a better
sense of how, when, and where agencies are able to participate in communities. For instance,
one interviewee noted that "[bjeing there, seeing the problems these communities face, the
struggles they endure—they can see firsthand how they can be a resource to solving local
problems." Further, another noted that by working in the community, federal partners could be
more effective in how they perform their work. Two interviewees stated that partnership has
provided an opportunity to build relationships and be more strategic. For instance, one noted
that
Most federal agencies are looking to say 'we are partnering.'
They want to be part of coalitions, joint efforts, leveraging
resources, making communities aware of how to apply for
resources. Clearly they want to be a part of things like this if they
have staff time to do it.
Another noted that the partnership has enabled relationships to develop between EPA, HUD,
and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). She/he stated that HUD
may not have become involved in Barrio Logan without the demonstration project, and further, it
is unlikely that HUD would have encouraged the City to apply for the lead grant. Other value of
participating in the Barrio Logan partnership cited by interviewees included opportunities to:
better understand environmental justice issues; show that federal partners are doing work to
address these issues; share lessons learned with other communities; learn a combination of
skills—both technical and social; and influence action. For the last comment, the non-federal
interviewee remarked that "EPA can influence action because people listen to them."
When asked whether federal agencies have been able to better coordinate their
activities as a result of their involvement in the Barrio Logan partnership, of the thirteen
addressing the question, nine didn't know, two said yes, and two said no. Of those that didn't
know, one interviewee remarked that the federal partners were probably sharing information.
One didn't see any coordination. One indicated that the federal partners had kept the
partnership informed. And finally, one suggested that HUD, EPA, and NIEHS needed to
coordinate better. For those responding yes, that federal partners were coordinating more
Do Not Cite or Quote.
30
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
effectively, one federal interviewee remarked that coordination is especially improving in the
Barrio Logan project. For those responding no, one interviewee remarked that she/he has not
seen the federal partners contribute substantively to the partnership.
Interviewees were also asked if participating federal partners had identified conflicting
requirements in their statutes or regulations that have been barriers to the success of the Barrio
Logan partnership. Nine of the thirteen interviewees addressing this question indicated that
none had been identified. One interviewee remarked that in the partnership's case, having
federal agencies participate actually led to a larger collaboration since federal policies typically
require a broad range of public involvement. Another remarked that although conflicting
requirements had not been identified, working with federal bureaucracies could be burdensome.
Two indicated that some policies or approaches could limit effective collaboration. One noted,
for instance, that one federal partner's ability to participate is limited by its mission. Another
remarked that one federal agency had an important philosophical difference with another federal
agency about participating in the partnership. She/he added that originally, this agency did not
want to participate, but the agency's regulations did not prevent the agency from participating.
The agency ultimately chose to participate and now benefits from information sharing.
Finally interviewees were asked what they would recommend federal agencies do to
best tailor their roles to participate in collaborative processes. Eight of the fourteen addressing
this question stated that federal partners should provide funding. Directly related to funding,
four suggested that federal partners should require that an evaluation component be built in to
collaborative efforts. Three interviewees recommended that federal partners should provide
collaborative efforts with facilitation services. However, one did suggest that requirements
should be built into to allow for facilitators to be removed. Still related to funding, one
interviewee suggested that federal agencies provide administrative support for such items as
issue follow-up, the production of overheads, and organization of tours. Another added that
translation services should be federally supported. Also on the topic of funding, one federal
interviewee stated that most agencies have little or very few resources and limited funding; but
added that they can provide resources by way of staff time and staff expertise.
Five interviewees urged federal agencies to enable communities to play key roles in the
development and/or implementation of community-based partnerships. For instance, one
recommended that partnerships/IWG demonstration projects be developed simultaneously with
the community—defining goals and identifying problems. Three interviewees recommended
that federal agencies allow certain partners-either a single partner, a single federal partner, or a
group of partners—to take a stronger leadership role in these efforts. Two interviewees
suggested that federal partners better focus their resources to support collaborative efforts. For
example, one suggested that federal partners should better coordinate and plan with each other
before going into potential partnership communities.
Interviewees also recommended that, in order to best participate in collaborative efforts,
federal agencies should: develop a mix of both social and technical skills; maintain a federal
representative in the partnership location; keep federal partnership staff consistent; use
influence to encourage support for these efforts at the local level; initiate a partnership through
local government channels; be patient; be active; and send high-ranking, personable staff to
participate.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
31
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Key Findings (as of October 2001)
¦	Overall the participants were satisfied with the partnership and their ability to participate in it.
However, several were concerned that the partnership may lose momentum if it cannot
produce tangible outputs in the very near future.
¦	Many of the participants would like to see greater attention placed on involving Barrio Logan
residents in the partnership to a level the residents feel comfortable with. Several are
concerned that the issues of powerful organizations will override residents' issues and
concerns.
¦	Most participants agree with the decision to use a facilitator and a Partnering Agreement.
They feel that these have been critical resources, and without them, it would be difficult to
engage in genuine, productive partnering.
¦	Several participants agree that use of the collaborative process has, or will, greatly assist
the Barrio Logan community. Without this process, it is doubtful that critical issues would be
addressed to the extent they would without the partnership.
¦	It is clear that the Barrio Logan partnership is quite passionate about its mission. The many
and diverse partners have been able to overcome several obstacles just to be able to sit in
the same room and discuss issues. If the partnership can maintain resources and
momentum, the partners should achieve their goals and leave Barrio Logan with better air,
housing, and overall quality of life.
Afterword
After interviewees had the opportunity to review the first draft of this case study, the
Barrio Logan Partnership submitted an update regarding partnership activities occurring
between October 2001 and June 2002. Since October 2001, partnership members have formed
three task forces, or subcommittees of the larger group, to work on specified projects in
furtherance of the partnership goals. The Truck Traffic and Diesel Reduction Task Force is
identifying both short- and long-term strategies for truck traffic and diesel emissions reduction in
the community. The Regulatory Enforcement and Pollution Prevention Task Force is targeting
the automobile repair and auto body industry for pollution prevention education and regulatory
enforcement. Finally, the Community Planning Task Force_plans to produce a "how to" manual
to assist residents in organizing a community planning group or similar body that can address
land use and zoning issues.48
The Barrio Logan Partnership also provided comments that were developed at the
Partnership's April 3, 2002 meeting, at which partners were asked about the value of the
Demonstration Project so far. The comments are listed below:
¦	The Partnership has served as a catalyst for getting elected officials more involved in
both contamination and land use planning issues.
¦	The regular opportunity for communication among the Partners has deepened each
other's understanding of the issues and problems.
¦	The California Air Resources Board agreed that it stayed in the community longer than
would have been the case if the Partnership had not heightened their concern. The
San Diego Air Pollution Control District also agreed that participation in the Partnership
Do Not Cite or Quote.
32
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
had focused their attention on Barrio Logan and led them to do more outreach, such as
the newsletter.
¦	The National Steel and Shipbuilding Company indicated that participation in the
Partnership had led to its engagement in several projects in Barrio Logan that it likely
would have not gotten involved in otherwise.
¦	Overall, the group agreed that the Demonstration Project was very valuable, that
positive things were occurring that would not have otherwise, and that in terms of the
three work plans, they wanted to stay the course.49
Finally, the Barrio Logan Partnership explained that the City of San Diego has started
the process of revising the zoning and community plan for Barrio Logan. On June 12, 2002, the
Land Use and Housing Committee of the City Council considered whether to develop a
workplan for revision of the zoning, community and redevelopment plans for the area. The
Partnership sent a letter to Councilmember Ralph Inzunza, the Councilmember for the area, in
support of the elimination of incompatible land uses in Barrio Logan. Four partners provided
testimony at the hearing. The matter passed unanimously.50
Do Not Cite or Quote.
33
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
34
Draft: 9.4.02

-------

Partners are involved because they know it is the right thing to do and they have
been doing it for four years.
It is like going from zero collaboration to a huge amount of collaboration.
The things important to the Navy is understanding, and identifying, issues that are
important to the community, which include, jobs, environmental cleanup, parking, you
name it.
B2F is trying to embrace the unique needs of the population through community
visioning. Much work has happened in conjunction with what is going on [with] the
Navy Base.
— Interviewees, Bridges to Friendship Partnership
Community History
Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, is bordered by the states of Maryland
and Virginia, and divided into four quadrants: Northwest, Northeast, Southwest and Southeast.
The Southeast and Southwest quadrants consist of approximately 146,619+ people representing
a variety of racial and social backgrounds. Neighborhoods also vary ranging from upper middle
class to low income. The Southeast quadrant is also home to the Washington Navy Yard, which
is bordered by the Anacostia River to the south and occupies over seventy acres of space. The
Navy Yard is surround by neighborhoods noted by the local press for high drug use and crime
rates, a large unemployed population, and high numbers of welfare recipients.1
The neighborhoods in Southwest and Southeast D.C. traditionally housed lower to
middle income Caucasian and African American working classes.2 For example, in the late
1800's one of the first D.C. suburbs, called Uniontown, was created for the Navy Yard workers
in Southeast D.C. Originally this was a "Whites-only" settlement but after the Civil War,
Frederick Douglas broke the exclusive covenant and many free African Americans settled in the
area.3
By 1920, Southwest and Southeast D.C. were made up of vibrant and diverse
communities. For example, Anacostia, the section of Southeast D.C. east of the Anacostia
River, claimed a higher percent of home ownership than any other sections of D.C.4 The area
was made up of thriving neighborhoods where Navy Yard employees, doctors, lawyers and
other community members shopped, visited movie theaters, and strolled down the scenic
Anacostia waterfront.5 Southwest D.C. was also thriving. Although traditionally poor, the years
* Interviews for this case study conducted from December 2001 through March 2002. Thirteen separate
interviews were conducted and a total of sixteen persons participated. Interviewees were conducted with
representatives of non-profit organizations, federal agencies, and local agencies.
+ Figure calculated by using (1) D.C. Office Of Planning/State Data Center's information overlaying the
2000 census tracts on the D.C. quadrant divisions, and (2) the 2000 U.S. Census population data.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
35
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
between 1895 and 1930 were hailed as the neighborhood's "golden years", characterized by
rich cultural traditions and strong community ties.6
However, rapid population growth, poor zoning laws, urban renewal in selected D.C.
neighborhoods and the creation of concentrated public housing lead to a socio-economic shift in
the population of Southeast D.C. In 1967 the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)
began construction of 30,000 public housing units in Anacostia. Public service expansion did
not keep pace with the influx of residents to Anacostia, however, and by the 1970's "the area
schools were 83% over capacity" and there were an inadequate number of health care facilities
in the area.7 During this same time, areas in Southwest D.C. also underwent major transitions
as neighborhoods perceived by city officials as slums were cleared, streets were widened, new
streets and superblocks were constructed, and businesses, residents, and community
landmarks were relocated or eliminated.8
Through the 1980s to the late 1990s conditions in several neighborhoods throughout
Southwest and Southeast D.C. continued to deteriorate. The area's traditional diversity could
no longer be seen, and in Anacostia in the late 1990's the population was approximately 90
percent African American, seven percent Caucasian, and two percent Hispanic9. In 1997,
Anacostia residents had an average yearly income of $26,000 versus a citywide average of
$40,000, and only 28 percent of the adult residents had attended college compared to 52
percent of adult citywide residents.10
Recently however, conditions in Southwest and Southeast, have taken a turn for the
better. In 1997, for instance, the Good Hope Marketplace shopping center—the largest retail
development in Southeast D.C. in over 20 years and one of only two supermarkets in all of
Southeast—was completed.11 Similar initiatives began in Southeast in conjunction with the
planned redevelopment of the waterfront neighborhoods along the Anacostia River. During the
increased revitalization efforts in Southeast D.C., the Navy Yard also began a major
redevelopment effort. The division between the Navy Yard and the community, long symbolized
by the Yard's high brick walls, were beginning to be bridged.
Bridge building began in 1995, when the Navy Yard was designated to serve as a major
administrative facility for the Navy, through the Base Realignment and Closure Act. More than
5,000 additional military and civilian personnel were to be employed at the Navy Yard over the
next several years, doubling its workforce at the time. Furthermore, in 1996, a lawsuit filed by
the Sierra Club alleging that that waste from the Navy Yard & South East Federal Center
(SEFC) discharged into the Anacostia posed an imminent and substantial danger to human
health and the environment. In January 1997, under EPA oversight, the Navy completed an
environmental investigation of the Washington Naval Yard facility, and in 1999 the Navy Yard
was approved for cleanup under the Superfund program.
Partnership Background
In conjunction with any installation restoration, in this case, the Superfund cleanup
project, the Navy is required to set up a Restoration Advisory Board. The Navy Yard's
Restoration Advisory Board began regular meetings to inform the community about the cleanup
procedures at the Navy Yard and garner input directly from surrounding residents as well as
from local community-based organizations. In addition to issues associated with cleanup,
residents raised concerns regarding area redevelopment and the potential displacement of the
surrounding community members by new Navy Yard personnel.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
36
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
The new independent development in the area, along with indications that Navy Yard
redevelopment would spur additional development outside the base, raised concerns of many
local residents who feared that the purchase and/or restoration of deteriorating urban property
by developers or incoming, middle-class or affluent people would eventually result in the
displacement of lower-income residents. At the same time, the Navy Yard, community-based
organizations, federal, and city governments had begun to examine ways to respond to these
and other issues, including concerns about Navy Yard work force and limitations. Eventually,
these different groups began pooling their resources in a collective effort to revitalize the Navy
Yard's surrounding communities by providing "wide access to economic, employment, and
training opportunities for residents".12 This initial collaborative effort, referred to as Walls to
Bridges, lasted less than a year. However, many of these same organizations regrouped to
form a much stronger collaborative effort in 1998 that still operates today.
In July 1998 thirteen organizations signed a partnership agreement marking the
beginning of the Bridges to Friendship (B2F) Partnership. Admiral Christopher Weaver, who
had recently become Commandant of the Washington Navy Yard, began to champion the B2F
mission. Since that time the B2F Partnership has recruited approximately 40 members,
including six federal agencies, three city agencies, 25 community-based organizations, four for-
profit organizations, and two universities. The Partnership has also received significant
attention and praise. In 1998, the White House formally recognized the B2F Partnership for its
commitment to environmental justice and empowering community residents. Further, in May
2000, the Interagency Working Group on the Environmental Justice demonstration project
named the B2F Partnership a national Environmental Justice demonstration project, because of
its commitments to collaborative problem-solving.
Partnership Process
Upon signing the partnership agreement in July 1998 the 13 original B2F partner
organizations developed an operational structure that consisted of five work groups (Community
Pride, Youth Outreach, Career
Development and Training, Small
Business Development, and Private
Sector Outreach), each led by a work
group chair, whose focus was defined
by direct and indirect (via community-
based organizations) public input. The
management structure also included
(1) a Steering Committee composed of
the five work group chairs and the most
active workgroup staff, as appropriate;
and (2) an Executive Board composed
of the original signatories to the
partnership agreement. The Executive
Board designated an Executive
Director to continue building
partnership resources, conduct overall
coordination of the effort, and provide
an administrative infrastructure. The E
contractor support. The work group chairs were originally charged with implementing activities
that would move the partnership forward so that it might achieve its many goals. The chairs of
the workgroups were given extensive autonomy and were expected to report to the Executive
Board on actions, proposed milestones, and needs.
Figure 1. EPA List of Original Members of the Bridges
to Friendship Partnership
Alice Hamilton Occupational Health Center
Covenant House Washington
D.C. Department of Employment Services
Ellen Wilson Redevelopment LLC
Friendship House Association
Global Environment & Technology Foundation
National Forest Service
National Parks Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of Interior,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. General Services Administration
U.S. Navy, Navy District Washington
cutive Director carried out his duties with the help of
Do Not Cite or Quote.
37
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Originally the Executive Board and the Steering Committee met once a month, then
settled into a quarterly schedule. The Executive Board and Steering Committee, whose roles
have been somewhat integrated over time, are charged with the tasks of maintaining the
Partnership's mission and deciding conflicts or questions brought to the B2F Partnership from
its member organizations. All decision-making affecting the full partnership is carried out by
consensus of the group. The focus of the five workgroups have been refined and four
workgroups officially remain—Job Training and Career Development, Business Development,
Community Outreach, and Youth Outreach—however the Business Development and
Community Outreach activities have been somewhat incorporated into the Job Training and
Youth Outreach Workgroups. The workgroups, whose original meeting schedule varied from
weekly to every two months, were created as self-directed teams to carry out any activities that
help the B2F Partnership achieve its defined mission. The workgroups brainstorm, plan, and
implement these activities with considerable autonomy. A graphic representation of the B2F
Partnership is shown below.
Figure 2. EPA Representation of the B2F Partnership
Community Orgs

o
C. Agencies
L
\
v
B2F
Admin



\
/
%
Businesses
C Federal
Anpnrips


1ZL
Working Groups
Job training
Career development
Business Development
Youth Outreach
Community Outreach
B2F facilitates open lines of communication between its partner organizations. This communication allows the
common goals of the B2F partners to be vocalized and their resources shared. The B2F workgroups are
responsible for brainstorming, planning, and implementing actions that will help the Partnership achieve these
shared goals.
The Partnership primarily relies on voluntary resource commitments from its partner
members. It also originally relied upon federal funding to support the Executive Director position
and to provide contractor support for B2F activities and publications. In October 1998 the Navy
funded, David Ouderkirk, an EPA employee under an Interagency Agreement, enabling him to
direct B2F Partnership activities. Later, in February 1999, however, the Partnership
encountered problems funding its management infrastructure. The federal legal counsel
determined that the B2F Partnership was a "non-federal entity", prohibiting Navy personnel from
directing the B2F Partnership and the use of appropriated funds for any B2F activity. This
decision stopped Mr. Ouderkirk from legally directing the B2F partnership and prohibited the
Navy's contractor from working with B2F to provide meeting logistics, reporting, printing, web-
page design and maintenance, and list serves. Further, in November 1999, the Interagency
Agreement for the Executive Director position had expired, and EPA found itself in the position
Do Not Cite or Quote.
38
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
of no longer being able to loan B2F a full time employee. At the same time, the Partnership
agreed that the position had to be funded by a non-federal organization due to the ruling of the
federal lawyers. These funding and placement issues took months to resolve and B2F had its
first regroup meeting in July 2000. These various set backs greatly hampered the participating
groups' abilities to coordinate their actions and slowed the Partnership's momentum. The
funding problems have only temporarily been resolved. For the time being the Executive
Director position is funded by the D.C. government but housed in the federal government
(department of the Navy). There are still no extra resources for administrative contractor
support.
Despite these challenges, approximately 40 organizations continue to participate in the
B2F Partnership and exhibit a high level of enthusiasm when working together. Although B2F
maintains a well-defined operational structure, the Partnership allows for a significant degree of
organizational flexibility by design. Organizations can participate in the Partnership to gain and
share information about resources and opportunities that are pertinent to their work. If
organizations identify a problem or project that fits with B2F's mission and goals, the
organizations then join the Partnership, providing information, resources, and enthusiasm. If
these organizations continue to have projects that fall in line with B2F's mission as well as
resources to contribute, they become permanent partners and continue to enrich and add depth
to the Partnership. If however, their plans no longer coincide with B2F's mission, the
organizations stop sending representatives to B2F meetings and stop assuming Partnership
responsibilities.
Partnership Goals
As part of B2F's formal agreement, B2F developed a vision statement, mission
statement, and statement of purpose. B2F's vision statement is described below."
Vision Statement of the Bridges to Friendship Partnership
To bring about revitalized Southeast and Southwest Washington D.C. communities, to
preserve and enhance the quality of life and the natural and cultural heritage of the area,
Bridges to Friendship will leverage existing resources and expertise, act as a catalyst, create
new synergies, and support existing efforts.
In order to bring about this revitalization, the B2F partnership, as described in its mission
statement, seeks to a maintain "a process for organizational collaboration and delivery of
services in a positive operating environment for all of the partners to nurture trust,
understanding, and a shared vision."
In addition to the statement of purpose, mission statement, and vision statements, "B2F
has articulated five main goals. The Partnership describes these goals as follows: 1) support
the federal government's commitment to environmental justice, 2) provide residents with job
training and the opportunity to compete for real jobs, 3) empower the community and promote
community building, 4) restore the environment, and 5) promote sustainable economic
development.14 Further, each workgroup has developed its own goals. The Job Training and
Career Development Work Group seeks to create sustainable job training and lifelong learning
opportunities in Southeast and Southwest D.C. The Youth Outreach Work Group seeks
maximum participation of youths five to 25 years of age in activities and opportunities generated
by the redevelopment of the Navy Yard. The purpose of this activity is to promote and improve
their educational, social, and economic development. Moreover, this work group seeks to
Do Not Cite or Quote.
39
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
provide work skills and training opportunities for youth in the construction and environmental
industry while exposing them to diverse training opportunities through job shadowing,
internships, and job placement.
The Business Development Work Group, whose work has been subsumed to an extent
by the other workgroups, sought to achieve sustainable economic development by creating
entrepreneurial opportunities for the greater Southeast D.C. area. Additionally, the group
sought to foster interaction and support from the private sector. This work group was
responsible for fostering relationships with contractors and potential private sector partners.
Ultimately, the group sought to increase the number of quality businesses operating in
Southeast and Southwest Washington, D.C. The Community Outreach Work Group whose
work was subsumed to an extent by the other workgroups, sought to broaden community
awareness and interaction beyond sub-community boundaries through an improved
environment, more-attractive urban landscape, and increased perception of safety and trust.
Partnership Activities and Accomplishments
The primary product of Bridges to Friendship is the process of building organizational bridges
and fostering their use - identifying and organizing the sharing of resources and serving as a
broker, catalyst orimplementorto reach common goals.
-Excerpt from the B2F Statement of Purpose
The B2F Partnership activities and accomplishments center around (1) securing and
leveraging resources, (2) linking Southeast and Southwest D.C. youth to local job opportunties,
(3) and sharing information between partner organizations and the community. While B2Fs
partner organizations carry out many of the B2F activities, the partnership has been responsible
for enhancing the magnitude and number of acomplsihments of its partner members. During the
first year the B2F Partnership was credited by its partners with helping garner over $4 million in
grant funding. This money was distributed to individual partners, and used to accomplish the
group goals embodied in B2F's statement of purpose, mission statement, and visions
statements.
As part of B2F's efforts to link Southeast and Southwest D.C. youth to local job
opportunities, B2F has engaged in a number of activities. As of January 2002, the B2F
Partnership's environmental job training program had graduated more then 300 students with a
job placement rate of 70 percent, according to the Alice Hamilton Occupational Training Center,
one of B2F's partners. These students were trained in hazardous material clean-up, asbestos
abatement, lead paint abatement, general consruction industry safty, first aid/CPR, control of
biochemical hazards in construction, and other topics. Graduates from the environmental jobs
training program were involved with the cleanup activities at the World Trade Center, Pentagon
and Brentwood Postal Facility.
In addition to its environmental job training program, the B2F Partnership is branching
into many different career fields in order to provide more opportunities for the neighborhood
youth. For instance, two B2F partners—the Navy Yard and Covenant House Washington—
recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding, signaling the start of a child care training and
job placement focus for the B2F Partnership. In addition, the Partnership has recently gained
new partners who can facilitate food service training, including the University of the District of
Columbia. Further, B2F is negotiating with the Navy Yard's food service contractor, Compass
Group, in order to secure up-coming job openings in the Navy Yard's new food court. Compass
Do Not Cite or Quote.
40
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Group has already committed that local residents will be given employment opportunities at
restaurants on the Navy base.
Bridges To Friendship has also institued shadowing, internship, and elemantary school
programs along with life skills workshops. Internships have been provided by a number of
federal agency partners. For example, Covenant House Washington and the National Park
Service implemented Operation Challenge in 1999, an internship program that provided
summer employment opportunities for 40 community youth. Further, the Alexandria Seaport
Foundation has joined together with Covenant House Washington in order to provide pre-
apprenticeship training for the building trades. The Partnership has also teamed with Starbase-
Atlantis, a program designed to stimulate disadvantaged youth's interest in science, math, and
technology development. In addition, the Partnership has collaborated to develop a "Pathways
to Your Future" workshop that includes a manual with different modules on self-improvement,
including such topics as writing effective resumes and giving effective interviews.
The B2F Partnership, along with individual members, is further working towards
reforming a number of federal processes. For instance, the Navy Yard has made efforts to
refine their hiring processes in order to facilitate hiring of local residents. In addition the B2F
Partnership has produced a document to be issued by Naval District Washington, entitled
"Lessons and Suggestions for Effective Community Partnering." This document provides
feedback on opportunities to improve federally funded services.
Moreover, B2F has engaged in a number of activities to facilitate the sharing of
information between partner organizations and the community. For instance, the Partnership is
collaborating with the Workforce Organization for Regional Collaboration to track and make
available information regarding employment opportunties for local youth using a database. In
addition, B2F has implemented "Columbia Rising," a series of community dialogues whose
"purpose is to create neutral ground for discussion among community representatives with
diverse viewpoints on major community issues, and move toward the collaborative resolution of
those issues."15 Finally, the partnership has orchestrated a number of community meetings and
published a series of newsletters, brochures, fact sheets, and one annual report, in order to
advertise B2F activities and gain community input for future activities.
The Partnership also tried to stimulate new development in the area, particularly courting
businesses that will provide jobs to local residents. The B2F Partnership has organized
business development seminars and fairs in order to provide contracting opportunities and
technical assistance to local businesses. The Partnership has also partnered with the
Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, a District, federal, and community partnership, centered on
revitalizing the Anacostia waterfront and nearby communities16. B2F is further active in
community pride activities, by participating in community events and clean-up days. For
instance, during one clean-up day in Anacostia, Admiral Weaver along with his staff participated
alongside local residents to remove trash along the Anacostia River.
The following sections primarily describe interviewees' responses to questions gathered
from interviews conducted by EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation during from the
month of December 2001 to the month of March 2002. The sections focus on interviewees'
impressions regarding measuring partnership success, partnership success and challenges,
recommendations for improving the partnership, overall value of the partnership, and the value
of federal involvement in the partnership.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
41
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Measuring Partnership Success
The B2F Partnership has not instituted a monitoring and evaluation system to help
partners determine success of its activities. Despite this, B2F partners provided several
suggestions for measuring success. Nine of the thirteen interviewees who answered the
question mentioned that counting the number of people pre-trained, trained and placed in a job
would be one way that B2F could measure success. Four of thirteen specifically mentioned the
D.C. Department of Employment Services-sponsored database that tracks the number of
students pre-trained, trained, and placed in jobs as a tool that could be used to support this
monitoring effort. Three interviewees suggested that counting the number of community events
and the number of people who attended those events would serve as a measurement of
success, with one noting that, for example, one B2F-sponsored event had more than 3,000
people in attendance. One interviewee noted that after a "clean up day" there is an immediate
observation of stronger community pride, as well as an indirect correlation between the amount
of visible community trash and neighborhood pride. They suggested that this was a measure of
success. Another interviewee mentioned the number of businesses that invest and move into
the area could be a measure of success. To actually measure success, she/he noted that the
B2F Partnership could count the number of private and public sector jobs that open up in the
area. Finally, one interviewee noted that another measure of success would be the number of
residents in the community that know about the B2F Partnership.
Partnership Successes
When asked whether interviewees were satisfied with their ability to participate in the
partnership's decision-making process, sixteen out of the sixteen indicated they were satisfied.
As one interviewee described it, "effort put into the process is directly proportional to the
benefits received." However, three interviewees mentioned that although the involvement
opportunities were available, their organizations were not attending as many meetings as they
would have hoped.
When asked if the issues most important to their organization were adequately
addressed, nine out of the sixteen interviewees stated that the collaboration was not only
making a genuine effort to meet the B2F Partnership goals but that the issues most important to
them were being addressed. The seven other interviewees were generally satisfied with
partnership activities but qualified their statements with the following comments. One federal
representative cited his/her frustration with continually needing to convince new agency deputy
administers about the merit of the B2F Partnership. Another mentioned that the problems of
gentrification and poor quality school systems were not being adequately addressed. Two
interviewees mentioned that not enough jobs were available once the job training activities were
over. Finally, one stated that he/she "wished that B2F could measure its success."
When asked about the outcomes, or results, of the partner activities for addressing the
main issues of the affected community, of the twelve answering the question, six cited B2F's
skills-building efforts for community residentsnt For instance, one interviewee noted that six
hundred people have been trained and employed in environmental jobs as a result of B2F
efforts. Similarly, one interviewee cited development of a community-based resource—the still
on-going apprenticeship center. Two other interviewees remarked that the Partnership has
provided the community with greater access to development opportunities. For instance, one
^ During the interview process, interviewees were asked questions about both the outcomes of partner activities,
and the impact of activities for the affected communities. From the responses, it was clear that most interviewees
viewed the partnership activities in terms of outcomes, not impact. Therefore, the term outcome is used throughout
this discussion.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
42
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
interviewee remarked that B2F has linked local residents to local employment opportunities.
This same interviewee further added that the Partnership has prevented local residents from
being driven out of the area because of area redevelopment. Another interviewee explained
that B2F was having a very subtle impact for the affected community. Finally, one interviewee
explained that it was difficult to gauge B2F's impact, because it lacked an appropriate baseline
by which to measure, and another interviewee provided an ambiguous response.
When asked if they were satisfied with the outcomes of partnership activities so far, five
out of the twelve who addressed this question answered positively. Three stated that they were
very satisfied with some of the outcomes, for example, the aspects of job training, but were
dissatisfied with the outcomes of other Partnership activities including job placement results.
Finally, four of the interviewees said that they would never be satisfied, but agreed that B2F was
doing an excellent job with the resources they had.
When asked about the greatest success of the B2F Partnership ten of the fifteen
interviewees addressing the topic cited the partnering with others and building of a network as
the greatest success. For instance, one interviewee stated, "If you have a partnership you can
accomplish darn near everything you want to." Four stated that the B2F Partnership was
fostered by equal commitment from all the partner members to the partnership goals, mutual
respect for all the partners involved, and good communication between the partners. Four
interviewees believed that the B2F Partnership decreases the amount of duplicative activities
completed in the communities by partnering agencies and organizations. Three interviewees
noted that the B2F Partnership approach offers more creative ideas to resolve difficult issues.
Eight of the fifteen interviewees cited B2F-sponsored job training as a success.
Furthermore, seven of the twelve interviewees cited B2F's youth outreach programs as an
important success. As one interviewee stated "We (B2F) are trying to match a person to the job
they really want." Other successes cited included: (1) community's increased understanding of
the Navy Yard; (2) community's improved understanding that federal agencies care about what
happens to them; and (3) federal agencies' improved understanding of the needs of the
community.
Partnership Challenges
When asked about the challenges facing the B2F Partnership nine of the fifteen
interviewees addressing this topic cited the challenge of ensuring sufficient funding, specifically
as it relates to administrative support. The interviewees stated that the B2F Partnership would
benefit greatly from the establishment of an administrative support staff, however, there is no
funding currently available, and David Ouderkirk, the Executive Director, currently does the
majority of the administrative work alone. One interviewee stated that the lack of resources
associated with the designation of the B2F Partnership as an IWG demonstration project was a
challenge since more work accompanied the demonstration project designation. Finally, one
interviewee said that the B2F Partnership did not establish itself as a 501(c)(3) non-profit status.
An interviewee clarified by explaining that non-profit status would resolve funding issues within
the Partnership but it would not allow the federal employees to sit on the Executive Board. This
would greatly hamper information sharing, a main activity of the Partnership, between the
community and the federal government.
Five of the fifteen interviewed agreed that the tragic events occurring on September 11,
2001 have affected the B2F Partnership. The B2F Partnership's workgroup and executive
board meetings have been impacted since that date. Furthermore, there has been limited
civilian access to the Navy Yard since that time. Finally, two interviewees said that the
Do Not Cite or Quote.
43
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
momentum that B2F had gained earlier was deflated a bit after the tragedy. Related to the
events of September 11, was the rise of unemployment in the community surrounding the Naval
Station immediately following. Some interviewees believe B2F helped relieve and improve this
situation with programs already in place.
Four of the fifteen interviewees stated that the B2F Partnership needed to re-energize,
and regain momentum. For instance, one stated that the B2F Partnership moved too slowly
and needed "more action and less talk." Another interviewee mentioned that maintaining
momentum without regularly scheduled meetings was difficult. Another stated that if the
community's needs were not met quickly the residents' interest in the B2F Partnership would
wane. Other difficulties cited included community outreach and partner recruitment.
When asked if different organizational styles were barriers to partnership success seven
out of the eleven interviewees who addressed this topic said yes. Three cited the federal
government's lack of ability to fund the Partnership as a barrier to success. Two interviewees
expressed concern generated by federal agencies' standard protocol which encourages
regional staff, as opposed to headquarters staff, to take the lead in assisting in community-
based efforts, even when the headquarters staff are already based in or near the affected
community. One interviewee stated that the historically adversarial relationship between the
District of Columbia and the federal government made it difficult for the two to effectively work
together. Finally, one interview mentioned that it was impossible for federal employees to be on
the executive board of a non-profit organization. She/he further explained that this barrier
prevented B2F from switching to a non-profit status and assuring funding. Four interviewees,
however, did not identify any organizational barriers, noting, instead that B2F's main purpose
was to work around them.
Interviewees were also asked if there were conflicting federal regulations that limited the
success of the Partnership. Eleven out of the thirteen that answered the question said yes.
Five mentioned the federal government's inability to neither legally finance the Executive
Director position nor provide funds for B2F contractual support was a major barrier. One
interviewee mentioned a particular instance when a federal agency was not able to provide a
grant to a non-profit partner because of statutory restrictions. Finally two interviewees
mentioned that the restriction prohibiting a federal employee from participating on a non-profit
organization's executive board was a major barrier to B2F success.
Interviewees' Recommendations for improving the Partnership
When asked about ways to improve the B2F Partnership, twelve of the sixteen
interviewees stated that B2F would benefit from an increase in funding and resources.
Specifically nine interviewees explained that increased funding and resources to support
administration work would significantly enhance the Partnership. Similarly, three interviewees
mentioned that increasing administrative capacity would greatly increase the success of the B2F
Partnership. Along these lines, three interviewees mentioned the need for B2F to provide a set
agenda before meetings to ensure a common basis of understanding from which to work. Seven
recommended that the Partnership establish a permanent time and location for meetings. As
one interviewee stated "a way to improve this problem (scheduling conflicts) is to establish a
permanent meeting location and set a permanent date (e.g., the first Tuesday of every other
month)." She/he added that the permanent location should be a comfortable space and have
parking availability. Two other interviewees, concerned about lack of all partners' email
capacity, recommended that the Partnership only use technology that every partner possesses
to distribute pertinent information.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
44
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Three interviewees recommended soliciting greater direct input from the community
before B2F-sponsored programs are initiated. To help do this, one interviewee noted that the
B2F Partnership should establish an ombudsman for the community. Finally one interviewee
mentioned the need to continue to break down the bureaucratic barriers in the federal system as
a way to further improve the B2F Partnership.
Interviewees' Recommendations for Other Communities Using Partnerships
When asked to provide recommendations for other communities interested in using
partnership approaches to address EJ issues, eight of thirteen interviewees addressing this
question suggested defining a clear vision statement and focusing on what the member
organizations want to accomplish in the beginning stages of the partnership formation. They
went on to say that it is necessary for communities to construct their partnership structure
around this defined vision statement. Four interviewees stated that an agency should expect to
donate money and time. Two expanded this by saying in initial stages of the partnership
formation process, partners should require potential members to explain what resources their
organization can supply to the partnership. Three went on to say the partnership should be
inclusive, and open to all who want to participate with the understanding that every organization
will have something to contribute.
Two interviewees recommended that communities using partnerships enlist the services
of a strong facilitator and coordinator. Another remarked that the partnership should account for
issues of member burnout. To avoid this she/he recommended that the member organizations
rotate personnel who are the key contacts to the partnership. Another interviewee
recommended that the partnership stay flexible since the flexibility within the B2F Partnership is
what makes it successful. In addition, another interviewee cautioned other communities using
partnerships to be aware that as the "level of expectation rises, the level of action seems to
reduce."
Finally, two non-profit representatives advised other non-profit organizations to avoid
expecting that entry into a partnership will result in increased funding. They further explained
that non-profit organizations need to understand that a partnership, and resulting network,
allows participating organizations to tap into a wide range of resources, only one of which may
be money. According to the interviewee, partnerships "will yield you gains", but only if the non-
profit organization believes in the partnership as a whole. In addition, she/he warned that non-
profit groups cannot "circumvent the group for their own enhancement."
Value of the Collaborative Partnership
When asked if the issues facing the affected community would have been addressed
had the B2F Partnership not been formed thirteen of the fifteen interviewees who answered the
question stated that the issues would not have been addressed to the same extent, if at all.
Four remarked that the partnership model was the only way to fully address the issues facing
the affected communities, and added that the services provided by individual organizations
would have been fractured, inconsistent, and would not have received as much "buy-in" from
the community. However, two interviewees felt that the community was empowered before the
Partnership came into being and, therefore, many issues were already being addressed.
However, one of these interviewees acknowledged that B2F enhanced and focused the groups.
When asked about the value of addressing issues through a collaborative partnership
approach, three of the fifteen interviewees who addressed this topic stated that the B2F
Partnership provided a network of resources and contacts for support. Four mentioned that the
Do Not Cite or Quote.
45
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Partnership provided a structure for different organizations to pool their individual resources.
Further, three others stated that this pooling of resources and increased communication
between individual organizations reduced the redundancy of services provided to the affected
community. Four interviewees said the B2F Partnership provided an excellent forum where
community issues can be discussed. One went on to say that the Partnership ensured
community participation, specifically through the inclusion of non-profit community
organizations. Two others mentioned that because all organizations were working together, this
reduced the likelihood that one organization would take the lead within the community. Finally,
one interviewee mentioned that the collaborative method was a "good vessel for the
environmental justice campaign."
Interviewees were asked if the B2F Partnership could be used to address similar issues
that the community might face in the future. Eleven of the sixteen stated that the model could
be used for future issues. Five thought that the collaborative model approach is the new way
the government should do business. Two interviewees commented that the B2F membership
has the expertise needed to cover many areas of the affected community and the uniqueness of
this project is in its depth. Another interviewee went so far as to say the "collaborative is the
only way to overcome classic bureaucratic barriers blocking good things from happening."
However, three interviewees were skeptical of the model. One mentioned that the approach is
still untested. Another thought it was a good approach but still needed to be improved, and one
thought that "we are too bureaucratically trained" for the collaborative model to continue to work.
Value of the Federal Involvement in the Partnership
When asked about the effect of having federal agencies participate in the B2F
Partnership, thirteen of the thirteen interviewees who answered the question had positive things
to say. Ten stated that federal involvement has added credibility to the partnership. One
explained that federal involvement in the collaboration validated the community's concerns that
a problem exists. Five stated that the federal government provides resources and expertise in
the form of money, training, outreach programs, and accountability via documentation.
Furthermore, two of those interviewees mentioned that federal involvement boosts community
enthusiasm and increases the community's organizational capacity. Three of the thirteen
interviewees stated that federal involvement results in greater information sharing between the
community and other organizations.
When asked what the federal agencies gained by participating in the B2F Partnership,
eight of the fourteen interviewees who answered stated that the federal agencies now have a
greater understanding of the affected communities. Four clarified by stating that the B2F
Partnership allows federal agencies to "see who in a community is benefiting from their
mandates." One said that the federal agencies "sometimes deal with policy rather than people,"
and the collaborative process is helping the federal agencies better identify ways to help
troubled communities. Three interviewees stated the agency activities performed collectively
have a greater impact on the community. Two others mentioned that the collaborative process
has helped the federal agencies identify the activities of other federal agencies in the community
and therefore reduced redundancy of services provided.
Four interviewees stated that federal employees have gained job satisfaction from
working within the B2F Partnership. They expanded by mentioning that they really enjoy this
type of "hands on" work as well as the satisfaction received from seeing newly trained youth in
their offices everyday. Another interviewee mentioned that the B2F Partnership has increased
the visibility of the federal government within the affected community and that this has provided
Do Not Cite or Quote.
46
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
validation of the agencies' work within the community. Finally one said that the collaborative
process allows federal employees to expand the boundaries of traditional government work.
When asked whether federal agencies have been better able to coordinate their
activities as a result on their involvement in the B2F Partnership, eleven out of eleven
interviewees that answered responded positively. One interviewee stated that "every time
agencies get together and understand how they can relate and what resources they each can
bring to the table they are more likely to do it again." Two others said that they are "gaining
contacts and starting [partnership] spin-offs." Another interviewee, however, remarked that
while the Partnership has increased coordination between agencies, it hasn't directly resulted in
improved coordination within his agency. Finally, one interviewee remarked that the Partnership
had resulted in increased coordination with staff and mid-level managers. She/he added,
however, that some federal agency managers wanted their agencies to take credit for
accomplishments that should be attributed to the B2F Partnership, and thus the Partnership,
according to the interviewee, could benefit from improved coordination.
Interviewees were also asked what federal agencies could do in order to better
participate within community-based partnerships. Four out of the thirteen that answered this
question thought it was necessary for the agency to provide the partnership with a point of
contact, whose role would be to represent the agency in all the partnership activities while
keeping the partnership's mission in the minds of management. Two of these same
interviewees mentioned that it was very important to pick the right person for this role, stressing
that the representative needed to be energized and interested in the project. Two others
mentioned providing flexibility under non-profit status regulations in order to allow the federal
representatives to the B2F Partnership to continue to participate if the B2F Partnership officially
organized into a non-profit.
Two interviewees mentioned that federal agencies should support the collaborative
problem solving method at all levels within the member organization and structure themselves in
a way that would facilitate their participation in partnership efforts. Along these lines, two
interviewees stated that federal agencies need to better market use of collaborative
approaches. They felt that this would increase federal agencies' support for participation in
these efforts. Two remarked that federal agencies should understand that they are part of the
community as well as the needs of that community when participating in partnerships. Two
interviewees also stated that federal agencies need to be prepared to take risks and be able to
cope with failure when partnering. One of these further suggested that agencies should not be
afraid to invite the public onto their facilities and explain to them what role the agency plays in
the community. Finally, one interviewee said that work assignment rotations should be
incorporated into every government employee's job requirements in the hopes that the rotation
will allow them to see how their decisions affect the "real world." She/he went on to say that
federal agencies should be given incentives to participate in community-based partnerships.
Key Findings
¦ The collaborative approach used by the B2F Partnership has allowed its member
organizations to better ensure that some of the most disadvantaged members of Southeast
and Southwest D.C. communities benefit form the recent development in the area and are
not forced to relocate, particularly those living near the Washington Navy Yard. The
majority of interviewees agreed that without the B2F Partnership it is unlikely that concerns
of the disadvantaged community members would have been considered to the same
extent.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
47
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
B2F has experienced substantial success since its inception in 1998 in leveraging
resources, sharing information and resources, building job skills and identifying job
opportunities for youth. All interviewees believe that the Partnership has made a genuine
effort to meet the B2F Partnership goals and that the issues most important to them were
being addressed. The members of the B2F Partnership consider the on-going collaboration
a success.
B2F would benefit from a fully funded, Executive Director position and increased
administrative support to ensure that it can continue its many positive efforts thus far.
Funding would help to coordinate the Partnership, advertise the Partnership's activities and
accomplishments both within the community and amongst potential members, and ensure
that the Partnership does not lose its momentum yet again.
In part, the success of the B2F Partnership can be attributed to the strong, charismatic
personalities involved. For example, many interviewees stated that the partnership would
not have enjoyed the same level of success without the continuing effort of the Executive
Director, David Ouderkirk, to maintain the lines of communication and act as organizer for
the partnership. Interviewees also mentioned the importance of Admiral Weaver, a highly
visible champion who increased the visibility and credibility of the B2F Partnership. It should
be mentioned, however, that the B2F partnership may rely to heavily upon these individuals,
and that if they were to leave the partnership, B2F might not continue to be as effective.
The operational structure within the B2F Partnership allows for a unique flexibility. Potential
partners are able to come to the B2F Partnership with a proposed activity and as long as
that activity coincides with B2F's overall goals the Partnership will expand to perform that
activity. The Partnership members have a positive attitude and continuously look for ways
they can help member organizations solve problems and attain goals rather than focusing
on the reasons why a certain problem is impossible to solve.
B2F continues to have the strong support of numerous and diverse partner organizations
including federal agencies, city government, non-profit and community organizations, and
academic universities.
Although many interviewees listed measures that could be used to track the success of the
B2F Partnership, no formal measurement and evaluation system is currently in place. It
would benefit the Partnership to institute a system to enable it to more systematically
measure the group's progress towards achieving its goals, better focus resources, and
more easily understand when to make programmatic changes. The Partnership could also
use the results of this measurement system to more easily communicate its
accomplishments.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
48
Draft: 9.4.02

-------

We are struggling with past relationships and trust issues. /As long as we move as a
group with no one individual making decisions we're ok
Between feds -we have varying interpretations of what the site should be cleaned up
to...This makes [cleanup]difficult
The [Partnership] saves everyone time and facilitates the overall cleanup. Saves
everyone time, especially for the Tribe. Could be a huge value for them in the end.
Knowing people at the other agencies has been a tremendous help. You get to know
people in the other agencies, and you start to look to them for other project
partnerships dealing with other issues.
— Interviewees, Metlakatla Partnership
Community Historym
Annette Island is located on the southern tip of a chain of islands in southeast Alaska
and covers approximately 200 square miles. Mild winters, cool summers and heavy rainfall,
along with both flat and mountainous terrain, forest, lakes, bogs, coastal beaches and rocky
shoreline, characterize the island. Annette supports a range of fish and wildlife, including
wolves, deer, three species of salmon, and American Bald Eagle. In addition, humpback
whales typically migrate alongside Annette's shorelines.1
In 1887, William Duncan, an Anglican missionary based in British Columbia, secured
rights to an Alaskan island for himself and a small band of Tsimshians Indians followers after
fundamental disagreements with church officials and a growing loss of control over Tsimshian
territory to government officials and non-natives.2 Mr. Duncan, along with 700 Tsimshians then
left their home in Metlakatla, British Columbia and traveled 100 miles to Annette Island.3 The
Tsimshians established New Metlakatla on the northern tip of a major peninsula in the island's
southwest region. Four years later, Congress formally established this and nearby surrounding
islands as a permanent reserve for the Tsimshians.4 In New Metlakatla, "the Community
created for itself a life that combined the old with the new."5 Residents built a church, sawmill,
fish cannery, community hall, guesthouse, and Victorian-style houses connected by
boardwalks They also re-established the native council7 and continued subsistence patterns
of fishing and gathering.8
At the onset of World War II, the U.S. government recognized the strategic importance of
Annette Island's location and leased 12,000 acres six miles south of Metlakatla from the
Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) in order to build an Army Air Force base and small Navy
base. Several federal agencies assisted in the development of over 700 buildings that
Interviews for this case study were conducted between November 29, 2001 and April 4, 2002. Eight
separate interviews were conducted and a total often persons participated. Interviews were conducted
with the tribal environmental coordinator, an environmental consultant for the tribe, and representatives of
six different federal agencies. Interviews with federal agencies included representatives from both
headquarters and field level staff based in Alaska, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which serves as the
federal steward for tribal lands.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
49
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
eventually supported roughly 7,000 troops.9 At the war's conclusion the facilities quickly
emptied;10 however, soon afterward the federal government once again began using a portion of
the facilities. In 1948, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and later the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG) leased the airfield which served as the airport for Ketchikan,11 a nearby Alaskan
city.
New construction in the 1940s resulted in "runways, taxi routes, hangars, storage tanks
and facilities, housing, docks, a hospital, and infrastructure improvements to water, sewage, and
communications" and, until that time, was the only development on the peninsula outside of
Metlakatla.12 Federal involvement on the island was important for the Metlakatla economy13 and
brought a limited number of well-paying employment opportunities for local residents.14
However, such benefits diminished with the cessation of most federal activity by the mid-1970s.
When a new airport opened in Ketchikan in 1974, FAA transferred most of the airfield and
equipment to the MIC.15 Metlakatla residents made use of several former FAA housing
structures for forestry offices. Further, community members developed a small sawmill inside
the hangar as well as a mill machinery maintenance shop in another building nearby. However,
most of the sites went unused.16 To support itself, the MIC continued to primarily rely upon its
commercial fishing and timber harvesting operations.
Today the MIC consists of roughly 1,400 residents.17 The median income for Metlakatla
families in 1990 was over $38,000 and unemployment was 13 percent.18 However, by 2000,
unemployment had risen above 80 percent, as many residents lost jobs and saw their royalty
payments disappear primarily due to federal timber restrictions that began taking effect in the
mid-1990s.19 Even before the restrictions and a disastrous fishing season in 1995,20 however,
the Tribe was making plans to diversify its economy and fortify its natural resource base. For
instance, the MIC eventually developed plans to construct a water bottling plant, a tribal
economic development office, and a rock quarry and engage in several other economic
development initiatives.21 A primary focus of the Tribe's, however, was the cleanup of the
abandoned facilities, debris, and potential contamination primarily leftover at the former airfield
site.
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Background
Concerned about the former sites' potential impact on health, local food supply, and the
economy, in the early 1990s the Tribe took steps to investigate the former site in more detail.
The Tribal Environmental Coordinator, along with the Tribe's contractor, identified over 80 sites
with environmental concerns, including "underground and above-ground storage tanks, disposal
areas, barrels, explosives, asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, and spills." A
summary report later developed noted that, "Environmental contamination presents a risk to
residents and workers at the site and to sensitive wetland and coastal environs."22
Instead of pursuing a Superfund designation for the Peninsula, the Tribe sought to work
cooperatively with the federal agencies that had contributed to past contamination. In January
1995, the MIC sent a formal letter to FAA asking the agency for it to assist in addressing the
environmental issues identified by the Tribe.23 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), COE§§§,
USCG, and FAA responded by conducting an environmental review to assess past government
impacts on the island completed in August 1997.24 In the meantime, FAA and COE began
working on a Coordinated Comprehensive Cleanup (C3) Plan to better coordinate cleanup
§§§ Under the Department of Defense's Formerly Utilized Defense Sites program, COE is the lead agency
for cleaning up sites used by the U.S. Army, Air Force, and Navy (See Federal Aviation Administration,
Annette Island Environmental Restoration Issues, p. ES-1.)
Do Not Cite or Quote.
50
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
efforts by the federal agencies and make effective use of resources.25 MIC's contractor, in
cooperation with the Tribe, also developed a master plan describing resources required for
cleanup and how MIC members could be hired to support cleanup activities26. By July 1999,
several agencies, either formally or informally, had signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), along with the MIC, to ensure cleanup cooperation.27 Today, the MOU Work Group
consists primarily of field-level representatives from FAA, COE, the MIC's environmental
coordinator, and the contractors for each organization.****
MOU Work Group
It is useful to think of the MOU Work Group's activities as roughly falling into three main
categories: (1) administrative, (2) environmental, and (3) community involvement and outreach.
In reference to the first, the MOU Work Group, as well as individual members, engage in several
activities to enhance cooperation and coordination. First, the MOU Work Group hosts bi-weekly
teleconference calls guided by a strict agenda where the members discuss "issues associated
with accomplishing the cleanup work, including MIC priorities, technical approaches, regulatory
requirements, sharing of data, coordinated scheduling of work activities, and community
outreach." 28 Meeting minutes as well as numerous other cleanup-related documents are
posted on an Annette Island cleanup site sponsored by FAA. Second, the MOU Work Group
has developed several additional tools, including a quality assurance program plan, to expedite
cleanup work.29 Third, COE and FAA (and USCG to a more limited extent) also share
resources to enhance efficiency of the cleanup effort. For instance, COE and FAA have shared
office space, exchanged personnel, and made use of a single engineering firm. By
collaborating on these activities, as well as community involvement efforts that will be discussed
more below, FAA estimates that the federal agencies involved directly saved over $750,000
from 1999 through 2001,30
Regarding environmental activities, agencies involved in the MOU Work Group have
made concerted efforts to cleanup all single party sites, although the MIC has yet to issue a
"closed" status for any. Further, FAA and COE have teamed up to address two party sites
involving FAA and a DOD-led agency. Once money becomes available, and allocation
responsibilities have been identified, the responsible agencies will move to cleanup these more
complex sites. A list of specific environmental accomplishments from October 1999 through
October 2000 is listed in the table below.31
BIA is an original MOU signatory but is not a regular participant in MOU Work Group activities. USCG
signed on to the MOU Work Group as an informal member. Since 2001 the agency has not participated
with the MOU Work Group, although it is still involved in limited cleanup activities on the island.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
51
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Environmental Accomplishments of MOU Work Group Members and USCG
October 1999 through October 2000
BIA	
¦	Eight contaminated buildings and pads dismantled and disposed
	¦	Scrap metal removed in conjunction with FAA	
COE	
¦	10,000 feet of former fuel line drained and cleaned
¦	7,000 gallons of fuel/water mixture removed
	¦	Additional mercury-impacted soil removed at one site	
FAA	
¦	Debris removed from 30 sites
¦	53 sites investigated to determine extent of contaminants possibly released into environment
¦	45 abandoned towers with lead-based paint demolished and recycled
¦	800 abandoned drums removed and recycled off the island
¦	14 underground one aboveground fuel storage tanks decommissioned and disposed of off island
	¦	700 tons of scrap metal removed from island	
USCG	
	¦	Process for removal of three storage tanks begun	
Community involvement and outreach activities of the MOU Work Group members
include consultation and outreach, actively hiring local MIC residents, and Work Group team
building. Regarding this first activity, members of the MOU Work Group provide briefings to the
Tribal Council approximately once per year. MOU Work Group members have also conducted
several community outreach activities, including participating at the Tribe's yearly Founder's
Day celebration and community health fair. Members of the MOU Workgroup have also actively
sought to hire MIC residents to conduct cleanup activities, a critical objective of the MIC. For
instance, COE hired seven local residents (50 percent of total field workforce) in 2000.32 In
addition, MOU Work Group members, and most noticeably FAA, have been actively pushing for
enhanced teamwork between members. Recently this desire culminated in a rigorous one-
week team building exercise held in Ketchikan, Alaska in March 2002, paid for by FAA.
Although the MOU Workgroup experienced some successes in coordinating and
initiating cleanup actions on several sites, according to an FAA document cleanup, efforts have
been hampered for several reasons, including lack of full coordination across MOU Work Group
members, insufficient funding, varying agency environmental policies, and lack of single overall
lead agency.33
Partnership Background and Goals
Recognizing the need for additional assistance and an opportunity, in early 2000, an
agency official within the Department of Defense (DOD), based near Washington, D.C.,
developed a proposal for the cleanup work at Annette Island to be accepted as a federal
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice national demonstration project. The DOD
official hoped that this national designation would enable enhanced coordination of agency
officials at the Headquarters level, and, in turn, enable parties involved directly in the cleanup to
identify, assess, and remediate contaminated sites more efficiently. The MIC agreed to this
approach, recognizing that such a designation would help better ensure that cleanup work on
the island would be completed. In June 2000, the proposal was accepted, and, soon after, the
Environmental Justice (EJ) Work Group was formed, consisting primarily of agency
headquarters officials from FAA, COE, USCG, BIA, as well as EPA. The MIC is also a member,
however, issues involving distance and coordination has limited the MIC's involvement. The EJ
Do Not Cite or Quote.
52
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Work Group and the MOU Work Group do not regularly hold formal meetings together;
however, loose coordination exists between the two.
Although not well defined, it is helpful to visualize the partnership around the issue of
island cleanup as consisting of three distinct components: (1) the MIC; (2) the EJ Work Group;
and (3) the MOU Work Group. All groups have as a common goal to cleanup the contaminated
sites on the island; however, they each have a slightly different focus. The MOU Work Group
members are focused primarily cleaning up sites. The EJ Work Group is focused primarily on
facilitating the resolution of difficult cleanup issues; and the MIC, although represented on both
the work groups, is focused on ensuring that cleanup will take place in a manner that meets the
needs and priorities of the Tribe. The Metlakatla Peninsula cleanup partnership is depicted in
the graphic below.
Figure 1. EPA Representation of the Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership
Metlakatla Peninsula
Cleanup Partnership
MOU Work
Group
EJ Work
Group
Assessment
Allocation
Cleanup
MIC
In addition, after the MIC was designated as a Brownfields Showcase Community in
October 2002, efforts were made by the EJ Work Group, MOU Work Group, and EPA
Brownfields officials to ensure that communication lines between the cleanup effort and the
Brownfields redevelopment effort would remain open. By integrating cleanup and potential
options for reuse at three sites through the cleanup and Brownfields work, the parties hope to
better ensure that the cleanup will match the Tribe's desired reuse of the site and potentially
make much more efficient use of resources.
On-Going Issues Impeding Cleanup
Despite the EJ Work Group's intention to resolve challenging issues impeding site
cleanup, progress in cleaning the more challenging multi-party sites has been slow. Two critical
issues are discussed in more detail below.
Allocation of responsibility for cleanup at multi-party sites. The numerous parties
involved, the numerous transactions involving property, and insufficient records,
complicate allocation. For instance, the MOU Work Group identified 18 parties that
Do Not Cite or Quote.
53
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
may be liable for cleanup costs including nine US federal agencies, two Canadian
federal agencies, the State of Alaska, the MIC, and five private companies.34 Closely
related are the complicated tasks of determining who should fund cleanup at multi-
party sites and then who should be responsible for conducting the remediation.
Determination of what constitutes a "clean" site. Members of the MOU Work Group
desire to seek official approval indicating that their site is clean once appropriate
remedial action has been taken. This matter is complicated, however, as it is not clear
to all parties involved what entity has responsibility to make such a determination, nor
what level of cleanup might be considered appropriate. As a sovereign nation that can
be delegated authority from the federal government to manage its environmental
programs, the MIC has developed, and received approval from EPA for several
cleanup standards put forth by the Tribe. However, the Tribe has yet to develop
and/or receive approval for standards that correspond to all the contaminants found at
the sites.35 Further, the various parties involved in the cleanup often have varying
internal guidance recommending that different levels of cleanup should be met.36
FAA-Alaska has been active in putting forth suggestions to solve remaining issues,37
however, no action was taken in response to these suggestions. Further, most Metlakatla
Peninsula Cleanup partners expect that solutions to the remaining issues will need
endorsement from the EJ Work Group before moving forward in concert. In an effort to resolve
some of the on-going obstacles, in 2001 the EJ Work Group initiated an alternative dispute
resolution process (ADR) led by a team from EPA's Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center.
In January 2002, the ADR team submitted preliminary recommendations to the EJ Work Group
on how to improve the process. This was followed up by a two-day meeting in Seattle held in
June that involved the Tribe and members of both the MOU and EJ Work Groups. It is too early
to tell the impact the meeting will have on improving the course of cleanup activity on the island.
The following sections primarily describe interviewees' responses to questions gathered
from interviews conducted by EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation from late
November 2001 through late April 2002. The sections focus on interviewees' impressions
regarding measuring partnership success, partnership success and challenges,
recommendations for improving the partnership, overall value of the partnership, and the value
of federal involvement in the partnership. It is important to note that this case study diverges
from others in that only two main categories of partners, federal agencies and the MIC, are
currently playing a central role alongside the MIC in this partnership effort. Interviewees include
the MIC tribal environmental coordinator, the MIC's environmental consultant, BIA, DOD
Headquarters, COE-Alaska, FAA-Headquarters, FAA-Alaska, USCG-Alaska, USCG-
Headquarters, and EPA-Headquarters. BIA is the federal steward for tribal lands and is
perceived as somewhat more closely allied with MIC interests, while EPA is considered to be a
neutral party.
Measuring Success
The Metlakatla Partnership does not have a measurement framework to determine
success of their effort. However, five interviewees had thoughts regarding what success might
look like and how the project should be evaluated. First, two interviewees noted that project
success would be indicated by cleanup of the contaminated sites. One added that currently 60-
70 cleanup sites had an "open" status, meaning that the Tribe was not in agreement that the
sites had been adequately cleaned. Similarly, another interviewee felt that success would be
indicated by a cleanup of the island to a degree that the MIC was comfortable with. Further,
she/he added that an additional indicator of success would be a cleanup that took ten as
Do Not Cite or Quote.
54
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
opposed to twenty years to complete. In addition, she/he added that milestones should be used
to help gauge project success. Another interviewee suggested that the on-going accumulation
of cleanup data should be used to evaluate success. She/he further suggested that periodic
checks by a federal representative should be conducted to ensure that cleanup is going as
planned. Finally, one of the same interviewees remarked that an evaluation framework is
needed, but that no single framework should be required for Interagency Working Group
Environmental Justice pilot projects.
Partnership Successes
In terms of greatest overall success, no clear consensus emerged from the interviewees'
responses. Four referenced the coordination of the partnership as its biggest success.
Specifically, two cited the coordination between agencies in the field. Another cited more
generally the coordination between the federal agencies, noting that the technical
communication between them is very well established and the agencies' engineers are very
knowledgeable. This interviewee added that the effective coordination between the federal
agencies has resulted from these agencies' dedication of funding, enthusiastic people, and
management support. Along similar lines, another interviewee noted previous cleanup efforts
were very sporadic and that mere involvement in this type of project "is a big deal." She/he
went on to say that, "People are pulling together because everyone sees it as something
positive for the community." Related to coordination, two interviewees directly referenced the
involvement of certain stakeholders as the partnership's greatest success. One noted
specifically the involvement of DOD's Len Richeson as critical in leading the EJ demonstration
project. Another cited the involvement of (1) federal agencies, particularly those not previously
active in working with Tribes (which may have resulted from the EJ Demo pilot designation); (2)
a tribal representative who has a leadership role; (3) a strong technical consultant for the Tribe
who can act in accordance with tribal values.
Another major success, according to two interviewees was dedication. One interviewee
noted that the MOU Work Group's dedication despite many frustrations was the partnership's
greatest success; while a second emphasized the dedication of the EJ Work Group, which has
continued to meet after two years despite many frustrations. She/he added that the group has
continued to meet because of their obligations to clean up the sites. Another noted that the
greatest success of the effort, thus far, was the agreement by the MOU Work Group members
to participate in a rigorous team building session. She/he went on to say that it's important for
the members to talk first about "what makes us tick" and then discuss allocation. Finally, one
interviewee stated that the partnership's greatest success has been the visibility it gained when
the cleanup effort was designated as an Environmental Justice national demonstration project.
Because of this, according to the interviewee, agencies provided more funding for the effort.
Partnership Challenges
Interviewees voiced several challenges facing the partnership. The most consistently
raised challenges centered on issues of trust and communication, allocation, and cleanup
standards. First, several interviewees raised concerns over communication and trust issues.
Specifically, five cited problematic communication issues between the MIC and federal
agencies. Of these, two noted that it appeared that federal agencies did not allow sufficient
Tribal input in decisionmaking. One noted that within the EJ Work Group it "seems like they are
not letting the community in." Two remarked that the federal agencies were not given sufficient
access to the Tribal Council. One of these explained that the federal agencies only had access
to the Tribal Council once per year but additional meetings were needed. She/he went on to
explain that the lack of timely meetings can be especially problematic when the agencies want
Do Not Cite or Quote.
55
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
to obtain site "close-out" standards from the Tribe. Also related to communication difficulties,
one of the same interviewees stated that the federal agencies did not fully understand their trust
responsibilities in relation to the Tribe. In addition, a sixth interviewee stated that the EJ Work
Group did not sufficiently communicate with the MOU Work Group. Finally, one interviewee
noted that one of the major difficulties has been establishing trusting relationships between all
the federal agencies and the Tribe.
Second, four of ten interviewees noted the difficulty of determining cleanup responsibility
for the multiparty sites on the island. One remarked that the on-going allocation process has
been "really, really challenging." She/he went on to say that part of this difficulty stems from an
inability to set meeting times when all parties can attend. Another interviewee commented that
the parties are willing to discuss allocation, but some are becoming frustrated.
Third, four interviewees cited the lack of consensus regarding cleanup standards as a
major partnership hurdle. Interviewees voiced concern that the Tribe may have set standards
too high in some instances, or that the Tribe's standards aren't equivalent to EPA's or the State
of Alaska's. One interviewee noted that her/his organization is regularly required to cleanup to
the most stringent level, but in some instances current technologies do not detect to levels
required by MIC standards. Another voiced concern that the Tribe wanted her/his agency to
remove certain contaminants to a level beyond background levels. She/he did note, however,
that the concerns over cleanup standards were being negotiated one standard at a time.
Other barriers to success cited include: (1) inconsistency between some of the various
agency policies and terminology guiding cleanup, such as what is meant by the term "lead
agency"; (2) getting reluctant parties to address their contamination cleanup responsibilities; (3)
lack of sufficient involvement by EPA Region 10 to help guide the cleanup process; (4) lack of
agreed upon contamination testing procedures; (5) lack of appreciation for the need to obtain an
allocation agreement for the multi-party sites, especially since most of these, according to the
interviewee, are the most contaminated; (6) determining who will actually conduct the cleanups
once allocation is determined; (7) consistent lack of funding; (8) disparities in funding availability
between parties; (9) ineffective communication about which cleanup issues are top priority; (10)
insufficient tribal experience to oversee the cleanup program; (11) addressing Tribal issues not
directly related to cleanup, which could confuse the cleanup process; and (12) winter weather,
which can slow the cleanup process.
When asked whether the organizational styles and procedures of the different partner
organizations limited effective collaboration between partners, of the ten interviewees
addressing this topic nine mentioned that some styles and procedures have limited effective
collaboration. Of these nine, five cited varying organizational policies regarding site cleanup
standards as problematic. For instance, one remarked that agencies under the Department of
Defense are only required to cleanup to approved EPA/State requirements, which could pose a
problem if the Tribe wants sites cleaned to a greater degree than EPA standards. Two voiced
concern that one agency's cleanup standard is based on risk, another's is based on the most
stringent standard approved, while another agency does not have a clear policy regarding this,
making it difficult to determine to what extent a site should be cleaned.
Another organizational barrier cited by two interviewees centered on budget/funding
issues. One remarked that different budget cycles made collaboration more difficult, while
another expressed concern about the inability for some organizations to consistently send their
principle people to meetings. She/he added that a centralized travel budget might help alleviate
these concerns. This same interviewee also explained that the Tribe's lack of resources for
environmental programs made it difficult for the Tribe to respond to issues raised by other
Do Not Cite or Quote.
56
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
members of the MOU Work Group in a timely fashion. Another interviewee explained that
her/his organization's policy prevented contracting with the MIC directly to perform cleanup
operations, thus limiting the number of MIC residents that could be hired. Another interviewee
voiced concern over a historical lack of trust between two partner organizations. She/he added,
however, that as long as EPA is seen as neutral, and all the members continue to make
decisions in a collective manner, this issue should not pose too great a difficulty. Finally, one
interviewee remarked that the federal agencies' inability to always know what the others were
doing contributed to project difficulties.
Interviewees' Recommendations for improving the Partnership
Interviewees provided several different recommendations for improving the effectiveness
of the Metlakatla partnership. Three of the nine interviewees addressing this topic
recommended completing the allocation process. One advocated bringing together the EJ
Work Group members, ADR officials, and Brownfields representatives together in one room to
work out all issues associated with allocation. Another emphasized that allocation may only
work if a consent order can be applied. Related to the allocation process, one interviewee
urged all parties to come together and agree to a consolidated, massive cleanup effort, and then
urge Congress to appropriate the necessary funding. Contrasting with this recommendation,
two interviewees urged EPA to expand its leadership over the effort, while another urged that
one person be put solely in charge of the project who would act as the "information hub."
Other recommendations included: (1) increasing coordination with EPA Region 10; (2)
conducting the MOU Work Group team building initiative; (3) ensuring that there is early,
substantial communication with the Tribe; (4) dividing the EJ Work Group members into smaller
groups to work on MIC priorities once they are fully understood; (5) providing greater follow-up,
such as meeting notes, following the EJ Work Group meetings; (6) training the MIC community
on ensuring effective communication with federal agencies; (7) ensuring that the MIC has close
communication with agency representatives in charge of implementing the ADR process
regarding allocation; (8) being realistic about cleanup schedules and funding requirements; and
(9) having EPA build a unifying framework to incorporate the many different activities associated
with the cleanup effort, including the EJ component, Brownfields, and DOD's Native American
Lands Environmental Mitigation Program.
interviewees' Recommendations for Other Communities Using Partnerships
All ten interviewees provided recommendations for other communities using
partnerships to address EJ issues. The first set centered around structural and operational
considerations of partnerships. Three interviewees suggested using central points of
contact/single project leads. For instance, one stated that partnerships need to "assign a lead
agency...you need an established authority/decision maker from the beginning of the process."
Two interviewees emphasized that resources be made available to ensure the implementation
of the partnership. One specified resources for "pulling the different member organizations
together in the collaborative" and another specified the need for administrative support. Another
interviewee suggested taking time to understand the local political structure. Finally, one of
these same interviewees urged that partnerships set standards about what they intend to
accomplish.
The second set centered on themes of openness and inclusiveness. Two interviewees
stressed the need for recognizing differences within agencies. For instance one of these stated
that when working with agencies "you need to learn differences in agencies, what their
processes are, and what their scope is." Similarly, another interviewee encouraged
Do Not Cite or Quote.
57
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
communities interested in partnerships to "be open and willing to talk." Finally one interviewee
provided several recommendations regarding inclusiveness. She/he stated that when
developing a partnership it is important to "identify all the players in a project, include every
group even the ones that are not visible. Emphasize participation." She/he went to say that it is
also important to use National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and EJ guidelines to help guide
partnership development. Moreover, the interviewee added that it is important to keep in mind
that tribal communities may lack the communication infrastructure (e.g., email, television, and
radio) that non-tribal communities have.
Value of Collaborative Partnership
When asked about the value of addressing issues through a collaborative partnership
approach, seven of the seven interviewees addressing this topic indicated that collaborating had
added value, although one of the interviewees remarked that collaborating had not been as
valuable as she/he had hoped. Four interviewees noted that the value of collaborating was the
efficiencies gained, such as time and money. One of these stated that by using the same
contractor, two agencies have saved between $600,000 to $1 million in cleanup expenses
alone. Another interviewee stated that the cost savings from collaborating would be most
significant for the Tribe, who, because of the partnership, no longer need to work out
disagreements with the different federal agencies on a one-to-one basis. She/he noted that
these savings for the Tribe could be really enormous by the time the cleanup effort is
completed. Related to economic benefits, one interviewee remarked that the partnership has
resulted in a large amount of money being injected into the MIC economy. Another explained
that the effort has resulted in the professional training of some MIC residents. These same two
interviewees explained that the partnership has resulted in some sites being cleaned up, and a
greater appreciation by the MIC that the federal agencies are addressing their cleanup
responsibilities. Finally, one interviewee explained that "the project fostered a better
understanding of involvement and a greater understanding of the different agency views of the
project."
When asked whether the collaborative process could be used to address other issues
that the MIC is facing, of the six addressing this topic, four indicated yes, while two were
ambiguous in their responses. One who responded with yes remarked that this same type of
approach is beginning to be used in the Metlakatla landfill cleanup project.
When asked whether the main issues affecting the MIC would have been addressed
without a collaborative approach, of the nine that addressed the question, two indicated
unequivocally that the issues (primarily the cleanup issues) would not have been addressed,
one that the issues would not have been addressed unless a court order would have been
imposed, and four that some cleanup would have occurred but the effort would not have been
as effective. Two gave ambiguous responses. Of those indicating that the cleanup effort would
not have been as effective, one stated that without a collaborative approach, FAA would not
have been as extensively involved and that COE may have avoided cleanup until later and then,
once it began the cleanup, would have simply informed the MIC what it was doing, performed
the work and then left, all without (1) making use of local knowledge to enhance the cleanup
effort and (2) aiding the local economy by hiring local residents. Two interviewees indicated that
the cleanup effort would have taken a lot longer to complete, with one adding that the cleanup
would not have been performed to a level that would be satisfactory for the Tribe. In addition,
another interviewee stated that sites simply would not have been identified to the extent they
would have without the partnership. Of those that were ambiguous, one remarked that it is
simply hard to say, while another remarked that every once in a while her/his agency has
Do Not Cite or Quote.
58
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
thoughts about withdrawing from the partnership, but then, according to the interviewee "reality
hits home."
Value of Federal Involvement in Partnership
When asked about the effect of having federal agencies participate in tie Metlakatla
partnership for the Tribe beyond the immediate issue of federal cleanup responsibility, the five
interviewees addressing this topic produced a variety of responses. Two interviewees stated
that federal involvement helped improve the Tribe's understanding of environmental issues,
such as environmental contaminants. Similarly, another interviewee stated that federal
participation enhanced the Tribe's appreciation for the role of the regulator in environmental
protection. One of these same interviewees also stated that federal involvement resulted in the
training of some MIC residents for cleanup activities and improvement of their management
skills. Another interviewee explained that federal involvement has boosted the image of the
Tribe, heightened attention regarding activities needed to cleanup the island, and enabled the
Tribe to more easily gain access to key decision makers. Finally, one interviewee stated that
federal involvement has simply been critical to the work on the island.
When asked what federal partners have gained by participating in the MIC partnership,
five of the seven that addressed this topic indicated that federal agencies improved their
understanding of tribal issues. For instance, one interviewee stated that, "The agencies have a
greater appreciation for federally recognized tribes and a clarification of what it means to be
federally recognized." Another interviewee explained that agencies "have gained the
understanding that Indian communities do not think like the rest of the world. The federal
agencies now know that they must deal with the cultural and the spiritual identity as well as
idiosyncrasies of tribal communication." Similar to this, another interviewee indicated that
federal agencies have gained awareness of the difficulties tribal communities have in dealing
with multiple agencies. She/he added that, "We now understand their perspective and realize
some of their frustrations when comparing the different requirements of the federal agencies. It
has helped us rethink and focus on our communication." Interviewees also stated that federal
agencies have accrued other benefits as a result of their participation, including: (1) a better
means of communicating between federal agencies; (2) an improved understanding of
environmental issues in Alaska; (3) cost savings for the federal government; (4) lessons learned
about the allocation process; and (5) a new model for conducting multi-federal agency cleanups.
When asked whether federal agencies have been able to better coordinate their
activities as a result of their involvement in the Metlakatla partnership of the seven interviewees
addressing this topic, three indicated yes, three indicated they weren't sure, and one gave an
ambiguous response. Of those indicating yes, one interviewee explained that the partnership
had challenged his/her agency's ability to work with public and private organizations, and
increased his/her agency's ability to work together, even at the headquarters level. Another
interviewee explained that the federal agencies are coordinating better "because they now
understand steps to take...[for] a project of this magnitude." For the interviewees indicating
possibly, two indicated that each's own agency's ability to collaborate has improved. The other
stated that "it is hard to see the influence of this compared to the whole great number of
coordinated projects; it is, however, reinforcing the federal collaborative trend."
Interviewees were also asked what federal agencies could do to be more effective
partners in local collaborative efforts. Ten of the ten interviewees addressed this topic. Five
interviewees emphasized establishing points of contact to help guide the partnership. Of these
five, two suggested that single points of contact should be established within each agency, and
added that the partnership work must be a priority for them. Two other interviewees
Do Not Cite or Quote.
59
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
recommended that one agency should be made to serve as the overall lead for the partnership.
One of these added that participating agencies should establish a common process and a
concise set of guidelines to grapple with issues where each agency has its own procedures,
such as with NEPA. Another interviewee recommended that the affected community be
empowered so that the partnership would be locally controlled and locally sponsored. She/he
added that partner members should only look to agency headquarters for support and advice,
not to guide the partnership.
Two interviewees provided suggestions specifically for cleanup. One interviewee
recommended that participating agencies develop some mechanism for determining cleanup
goals and persuading the responsible parties to negotiate cleanup issues. The second
interviewee urged EPA to make its cleanup expertise more available to other federal agencies,
especially ones not experienced in cleanup issues, although she/he added that regulatory
barriers prevented this. The interviewee further explained that if EPA had become involved in
helping coordinate cleanup issues earlier in the process, much time and money would have
been saved. Finally, one interviewee presented more general recommendations, suggesting
that federal agencies should communicate openly with affected communities and take time
explaining the everyday activities they are performing.
Key Findingsffff
¦	The MOU Work Group and the MIC have made significant progress to ensure that the
contaminated sites on Annette Island will be remediated, although several issues,
including the allocation of cleanup responsibility for multi-party sites and reconciliation of
varied perspectives regarding appropriate cleanup standards, will need to be resolved
before the sites are cleaned to a level acceptable by all parties.
¦	The overall cleanup effort could benefit by much more substantive interaction and open
communication between the EJ Work Group and the MOU Work Group. The Tribe, a
member of both work groups, appears satisfied with its involvement in the MOU Work
Group, but desires increased involvement with the EJ Work Group.
¦	The goals of the MIC and the federal agencies have not been integrated. The Tribe
sees federal involvement on the island as an opportunity to address other
environmental, public health, and economic priorities in addition to contaminated site
cleanup; whereas the federal agencies involved in cleanup work are primarily concerned
about cleaning up the contaminated sites and don't show signs they are ready to expand
this vision. Openly reconciling these two converging viewpoints should help reduce
frustrations for all parties in the future.
¦	Better integrating the goals of the Brownfields effort, the cleanup effort and other similar
Annette Island initiatives where clear overlap exists, although challenging, would
increase efficiency and reduce frustration regarding cleanup and redevelopment efforts
for both the participating federal agencies and the Tribe.
¦	Efforts by the MOU Work Group to openly communicate, establish common procedures,
and share resources have resulted in tangible benefits for all the parties involved,
including an estimated cost savings for the participating federal agencies of over
$750,000 between 1999-2001.
fttt Findings based primarily upon data collected between 11/29/01-4/24/02.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
60
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
¦ The MIC has performed a difficult task in inventorying and assessing numerous
contaminated sites on the island, urging federal agencies to begin cleaning them, and
negotiating the different cleanup policies of the federal agencies. However, federal
agencies involved in the cleanup would appreciate if the MIC's environmental program
had a greater number of technical staff that could assist in guiding the cleanup effort and
reviewing technical documentation.
Afterword
As noted earlier, during June 10-11, 2002, a meeting was held between Metlakatla
Partnership members to further address some of the remaining issues preventing additional
cleanup on the Metlakatla peninsula. Comments provided by one member indicate that the
meeting was well attended and participants were able to come to agreement on a process for
addressing allocation issues. Parties were asked to identify remaining sites they would cleanup
on their own. For those sites not identified for cleanup by a particular party, parties were to then
review a matrix to be used to enter into agreements between other parties responsible for
contamination at certain sites. Starting August 5, 2002 parties were then to actively participate
in an allocation process and complete the process as soon as possible. Parties were then to
work together to cover their costs for site cleanup subject to the allocation. Finally, following
allocation completion parties were to work together to support any share of costs that may be
determined by the allocation to be affiliated with past MIC activities. Parties were also expected
to jointly fund and cooperate to ensure completion of cleanup at sites subject to the allocation.38
Do Not Cite or Quote.
61
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
62
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Metro East Lead Collaborative
We joined because it was important that we not duplicate efforts with Illinois EPA and
the Lead Collaborative.
Now everyone knows what the other is doing. ..We were doing the same thing. Now
we partner.
Value [of the collaborative effort] will be the benefit to the kids. A., .generation of kids
will be protected.
— Interviewees, Metro East Lead Collaborative
Community History^
The City of East St. Louis and nearby surrounding communities including Brooklyn,
Alorton, Centerville, and Washington Park, in St. Clair County, are located in southwest Illinois
directly across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri. Built up around heavy industry, as
late as 1961, East St. Louis had a population of 77,000 benefiting from a strong economy and a
number of well-paying jobs. However, by the late 1960's the economy had suffered a severe
setback resulting in factory closures and the exodus of more than half of the city's population.1
Today, East St. Louis consists of approximately 32,000 residents. The population is 99 percent
minority. The poverty rate of the area is 45 percent. Sixty-five percent of the residents are low
income, and 24 percent are unemployed.2 The area is pocked by numerous vacant lots (four
miles out of the fourteen total miles making up East St. Louis are vacant) and abandoned
properties (one out of eight housing units are vacant)3, several of which serve dual roles as
children's playgrounds and illegal junkyards. Old, dilapidated lead smelters and lead paint
factories are common, and at least twenty of these industrial sites are contaminated.4 The East
St. Louis region also has significant air quality and flooding problems. In addition, children in
the area suffer from lead poisoning at a rate of four times higher than the national average.5
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has reported that nearly one in
six children in America have high levels of lead in their blood. The long-term effects of lead in a
child can be severe, including learning disabilities, decreased growth, hyperactivity, impaired
hearing, and even brain damage. Most homes built in the U.S. before 1960 contain heavily
leaded paint and some homes built as recently as 1978 may also contain lead paint, placing
many young children at risk, especially children ages infant to six, who may ingest the metal.6
Lead levels are perceived as dangerous by the U. S. Center for Decease Control (CDC) at
levels of 10 parts per million (ppm) or higher. However, Dr. Bruce Lanphear of the Children's
Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati has recently linked lead levels above five ppm to low
reading test scores and increased juvenile delinquency.7
High blood lead levels have been a known problem in East St. Louis and surrounding
areas for over a decade.8 In the spring of 1999, St. Mary's Hospital Corporate Health Center,
+ Interviews for this case study were conducted in early October and early November 2001. Ten separate
interviews were conducted and a total often persons participated. Interviewees included representatives
from community organizations, state, federal, and regional agencies, and business.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
63
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
the area hospital, carried out school physicals in order to assess the extent of lead
contamination in the school children's bloodstream.9 The results of the tests showed that one in
five children in the East St. Louis area had lead levels approaching the CDC dangerous level of
10 ppm. Further, lead levels greater than 5 ppm were found in 70 percent of the children
tested.10 Not only were the lead levels abnormally high, but the ages of those poisoned were
older than expected, six to twelve.11 These findings led St. Mary's Hospital to speculate that
children must be coming into contact with lead through means other than lead-based paint12.
The hospital's concerns prompted the Illinois Department of Public Health, in conjunction with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to conduct a study to assess the level of lead
in soil in selected East St. Louis neighborhoods. Results subsequently showed high lead levels
in soil at different sites.
For over a decade individual organizations have attempted initiatives to address the lead
issues facing the East St. Louis community. However, these area organizations' experiences
have revealed both communication problems between community residents and organizations,
and communication and cooperation problems between individual organizations. It is unclear
whether residents, and parents in particular, were aware of the dangers of lead poisoning since
lead's effects, although quite dangerous and possibly permanent, are not always readily
apparent; or, whether residents were inclined to stay silent on the issue, fearing that if they
spoke out, they would face repercussions from landlords and county officials, including the
potential loss of their homes13. Irrespective of the reason, community organizations were not
successful in persuading parents to act when they observed lead poisoning symptoms including
learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and stunted growth in their children.14
Partnership Background
To fully address the problem of lead poisoning, EPA recognized that a multi-pronged
strategy—one that could simultaneously address lead paint in homes and lead in soil—would be
needed. To be effective, EPA surmised it would need to collaborate, link, and build off existing
efforts of groups already at work, or capable of working in the East St. Louis area. While the
soil sampling was continuing, EPA began networking with a number of different organizations
that were already working in the East St. Louis area.
In February 1999, EPA called a meeting of stakeholders. As a result of this meeting the
stakeholders organized and began to call themselves the East St. Louis Lead Collaborative. In
May 2000 the East St. Louis Lead Collaborative was named as an Interagency Working Group
on Environmental Justice national demonstration project. In 2001, the Collaborative expanded
to include communities in St. Clair County and changed its name to the Metro East Lead
Collaborative (MELC). The members of the MELC are described below.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
64
Draft: 9.4.02

-------

Represented

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
(Federal/St. Louis, MO)
N/A
Technical assistance and site assessment,
Implemented Brownfields Showcase
Community Award
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Federal/Chicago, IL)
N/A
Facilitation and technical assistance, Grant
money
U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development
(Federal/Springfield, IL) and The Lead Hazard
Control Grant Office (Federal/Washington DC)
N/A
Technical assistance, Grant money
U.S. Dept of Agriculture/Natural Resources
Conservation Office (Federal/Champaiqn, IL)
N/A
Technical assistance, Grant money
East-West Gateway Coordinating Council
(Non -Profit)
East St. Louis
Grantee, Soil Sampling, Outreach
Enterprise Community Vision 20/20
(Non-Profit)
East St. Louis
Lead assessment, Redevelopment efforts
East Side Health District (Local)
East St. Louis
Blood lead screeninq, Outreach
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Collinsville, IL office (State)
NA
Technical assistance, Outreach, Grant
money
Illinois Department of Public Health (State)
NA
Grantee, Soil sampling, Blood lead
screening
NEIGHBORS United for Proqress (Non-Profit)
East St. Louis
Lead based paint assessments, Outreach
Neighbors Technical Assistance Center
(Non-Profit)
East St. Louis
Grantee, Outreach
Regional Vocational System (Academic)
East St. Louis,
St. Clair County
Outreach
St. Louis Community Colleqe (Academic)
East St. Louis
Grantee - job traininq, Outreach
St. Clair County Intergovernmental Grants
Department (County)
St. Clair County
Grantee, Blood lead screening, Lead
assessment, Outreach
St. Mary's Hospital Corporate Health Center
(Private)
East St. Louis,
St. Clair County
Grantee, Blood lead screening, Outreach
Southwestern Illinois Resource Conservation
Development (County)
St. Clair County
Grantee (biosolid remediation program)
East St. Louis Community Development Block
Grant Operations, Inc. (Local)
East St. Louis
Lead assessments
Partnership Process
After February 1999 the partners began to meet every two months at St. Mary's Hospital
in East St. Louis. The original MELC consisted of sixteen different organizations. At the time of
the interviews the MELC ran as follows. An EPA representative from EPA's regional office in
Chicago typically developed an agenda, distributed announcements and meeting times via
electronic mail, and then facilitated the collaborative meetings. Although the MELC did not
designate formal roles for individual partners, representatives from the sixteen participating
organizations grouped themselves according to resources and expertise. In addition to full
member meetings that served as a forum to share information about resources and coordinate
how those resources were used, the MELC formed two subcommittees: the health and
communication subcommittee, and the lead and brownfields subcommittee. The subcommittees
developed unofficial plans of action, which were discussed in the full collaborative meetings.
During on-going implementation of the plans of action the health and communication
subcommittee performs testing and outreach, and the lead brownfields subcommittee carries
out site identification and cleanup. These activities are completed simultaneously. In addition
the subcommittees share information and continually work toward the overall goal of reducing
lead poisoning and promoting redevelopment via the full partnership meetings.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
65
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Since October 2001, the MELC processes have changed considerably. For example, the
coordinating responsibilities, mainly assumed by the EPA representative, are now spread
among other partners, including community
organizations. Increased participation by
these community organizations in the "lead"
provide them with the opportunity for
increased leadership roles and decreases
the MELC's overall dependence on the EPA
representative. While the residents of the
East St. Louis area are not directly
participating in the MELC, the
empowerment of the community groups
representing them in the collaborative helps
to increase the sustainability of MELC.
Further, the MELC now rotates its meeting
place every four months during which a
different organization within the
Collaborative assumes coordination
responsibilities. The MELC has also
increased the number of organizations
involved bringing the total to more than 25.
In addition, the Collaborative has expanded
its goals to include waste minimization and
formed an additional subcommittee to
address this topic, partner with industry to
develop or improve pollution prevention
plans, and assists in brownfields
remediation.
This case study explores
background material and interviewee's
responses to selected questions from early
October 2001. Therefore the goals,
activities, and findings of this case study
describe the MELC before it underwent the
transformation described above.
Collaborative Goals
The MELC's overall goal was to
improve children's health in the affected
areas by coordinating existing locally-based
efforts to address lead. By sharing
information and limited resources, the
MELC expected to reduce the redundancy
of the lead-related activities already
underway in the East St. Louis area.
Specific benefits of MELC's coordination efforts were to include:
¦	Assessment of uncontrolled lead releases to surface soils in residential yards, schoolyards
and parks;
¦	Lead-based paint hazard assessment and remediation throughout the county;
Figure 2. EPA Representation of the MELC (1999)
Original Metro-East Lead
Collaborative
Coordinating Body




Health and
Communication

Lead and
Brownfields




9 9
Figure 3. EPA Representation of the MELC (2001)
Current Metro-East Lead Collaborative
Coordinating Body
Health and
Communication
Lead and
Brownfields
Waste
Minimization
$2$
The full MELC meetings are designed to coordinate the
activities of the subcommittees. The subcommittees are
the "decision-making" bodies.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
66
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
¦	Housing rehabilitation and the removal of lead from abandoned lots;
¦	Blood lead screening of children and pregnant mothers; and
¦	Medical care referrals for cases of high lead blood content.15
Collaborative Activities
At the time of the interviews the MELC's main activities centered on securing funding,
lead testing, cleanup and outreach. The MELC effectively organized and tapped into the many
resources provided by the individual partners. The MELC had secured over $3,250,000 from
the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S,
Housing and Urban Development Agency (HUD), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the St.
Clair County Intergovernmental Grants Department, and East St. Louis Community
Development Block Grant Office16 for the effort. MELC applied these resources to implement
different projects that facilitated the achievement of their goals.
Once necessary resources were secured, partner members fully sampled and mapped
the affected communities to identify lead-contaminated homes and industrial sites, and later
began to identify high-risk groups in the area. By early October 2001, five homes were
completely remediated and 75 were identified and waiting to be completed. Five industrial sites
were in the process of being cleaned, and twenty others were identified. Approximately 25
percent of the children under age six in St. Clair County were tested for high blood lead levels
and St. Mary's Hospital and other partners continue to test the community children's blood lead
levels. After children with high blood lead levels are identified their names are given to the
County. The County then passes these high blood lead level notifications, and subsequent
identification of possible property remediation sites, to MELC partners responsible for site
remediation. The MELC then sends an MELC representative to personally notify the families
whose children have high blood lead levels and assist them with home redevelopment
applications. Following these actions site cleanup begins.
The MELC is also actively implementing an outreach campaign in order to (1) educate
residents of the dangers of lead poisoning, (2) inform residents of the existence of the MELC,
and (3) describe how the MELC can help residents solve their lead-related health risks. To
assist with its campaign, the MELC employs the media and regularly releases press kits. Part
of this effort resulted in a news special that reported the dangers of lead poisoning in the East
St. Louis area, which aired on KPLR WB 11 in St. Louis. The MELC also distributes brochures
and flyers to local church leaders and community members describing why lead is a problem,
who is affected most by lead, the symptoms of lead poisoning, where children can be tested,
how the doctor checks for lead, what parents can do to protect their children from lead
poisoning, and where lead is found around the house. Similarly, MELC partners have also
handed out "Lead Folders" which contain magnets and bookmarks with information that children
can share with their parents. Moreover, MELC partners have written articles, describing lead
health-risks and MELC support services, that have been featured in community newsletters
including the St. Mary's "Neighborhood Care", "Lead A Special Edition", and the "Community
Environmental Resource Program newsletter".
In addition, the MELC hosts community meetings in order to disperse information about
lead poisoning. For example, the MELC held two meetings in the Jackie Joyner Kersee Youth
Center in East St Louis. Although attendance by local residents was low, those who did
participate received free blood lead screenings for their children ages zero to 14 years. MELC
partners also provided updates on MELC activities including the ongoing lead soil sampling
investigation, the lead paint and housing rehabilitation initiative, and the blood lead screening
Do Not Cite or Quote.
67
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
and education campaign. Finally, the MELC also trains local residents to act as community
facilitators and share information about the dangers of lead to their neighbors.
The following sections primarily describe interviewees' responses to questions gathered
from interviews conducted by EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation during the
week of October 1, 2001. The sections focus on interviewees' impressions regarding
measuring collaborative success, collaborative successes and challenges, recommendations for
improving the collaborative, overall value of the collaborative, and the value of federal
involvement in the collaborative.
Measuring Collaborative Success
The subject of evaluation was not discussed within the MELC. Even though a
monitoring and evaluation framework was not developed to track implementation of activities
and measure success, the interviewees did have several suggestions regarding this topic. Six
out of the ten mentioned the importance of being able to gather quantifiable data to measure
success. These interviewees suggested counting the actual number of contaminated sites
cleaned up, homes made safe from lead paint, and children tested and treated for lead
poisoning. Along these lines, one interviewee added that the MELC should work to have 125
homes cleaned of lead paint by the end of December 2002. Two interviewees suggested
conducting a comparative study that would quantify the number of children with decreasing
blood lead levels after the implementation of lead removal actions. Similarly another
interviewee mentioned conducting a comparative analysis of blood lead levels in children of this
generation with those of the next. In terms of what would actually constitute success, more
broadly, one interviewee mentioned that overall reduction of lead contamination in East St.
Louis would be one measure. Other interviewees suggested measures including improved
capacity of the community to address lead contamination issues, visible changes in the local
environment, housing redevelopment, the inflow of money and people back into the community,
and the development of additional green spaces.
Collaborative Successes
The majority of interviewees were satisfied with the role they played in the development
of the MELC and their ability to participate within the partnership. In addition, all of the
interviewees thought the issues most important to their organizations were being adequately
addressed. One community interviewee specifically mentioned being pleased to see an
emphasis on community capacity building demonstrated through local environmental job
training in cleanup techniques for the community. Along these lines, an agency representative
stated that the MELC was doing a good job coordinating its efforts, siting as an example St.
Mary's Hospital's willingness to refocus on some of EPA's goals.
When asked about the outcomes, or results, of the partner activities for addressing the
main issues of the affected community, few common themes emerged.™ Two remarked that
the partnership is not yet mature enough to have the intended impact on the community. Two
other interviewees noted that the partnership has resulted in the injection of additional resources
into the affected areas. Two additional interviewees remarked that the partnership has resulted
in the communication to residents about environmental and public health risks. Related to
public education, another interviewee explained that because of the Collaborative, agencies are
During the interview process, interviewees were asked questions about both the outcomes of partner activities,
and the impact of activities for the affected communities. From the responses, it was clear that most interviewees
viewed the partnership activities in terms of outcomes, not impact. Therefore, the term outcome is used throughout
this discussion.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
68
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
developing a better understanding of the issues facing the affected community. Another
interviewee explained that the Collaborative has resulted in the cleanup of five homes with 75
more to go. Finally, one interviewee stated that, "The cleanup is having a major impact...The
realtors are aware...that we are testing with St. Mary's."
When asked if they were satisfied with the outcomes of their activities so far four of the
ten interviewees that answered the question said unequivocally yes. Five interviewees were
somewhat satisfied with the current outcomes. They clarified by stating that: (1) they were
afraid that the activities could not be sustained by the community organizations if other partners
did not continue to participate; (2) the activities were not being performed fast enough; and (3)
there is always more to be done. Finally, one interviewee thought it was too early to comment
since "he/she did not know what the outcomes were yet."
The interviewees did not express a consensus about the "greatest success" of the MELC
and several responses focused on different qualities of the MELC. Five out of ten interviewees
agreed that the MELC's greatest success was its ability to join diverse groups together and
provide a forum where these organizations could effectively discuss what resources and
expertise each could provide. They added that this information exchange reduced duplication of
efforts. Further, by better understanding what each organization could provide, the
organizations were able to more effectively identify contaminated sites and children at risk from
lead poisoning and more quickly initiate lead remediation activities. Two interviewees also
mentioned the procurement, organization, and assignment of funds within the collaboration as a
major success. On a related note, one interviewee commented how impressive it was that the
MELC had been able to accomplish so much without one major argument, especially given the
diverse organizations participating. Another commented that one of the important achievements
of the MELC has been its "staying power", adding that the MELC is not only surviving but
actually gaining momentum.
Other successes of the Collaborative mentioned by two interviewees included the
assessment of soil contamination and the identification of contaminated sites/houses. More
specifically two community interviewees mentioned the identification of twenty contaminated
sites and the subsequent cleanup of five as the project's greatest success. One further
explained that EPA's follow-through on this remediation work was a major success. Two
interviewees commented that even though the community residents were not empowered as
individuals, the community organizations involved in the collaboration were, which to them was
seen as a success. Other successes mentioned included fostering of community pride, and the
designation of the MELC as an Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Project.
Collaborative Challenges
Interviewees gave many different answers when asked about the greatest challenge
facing the MELC. Although several viewed the level of coordination within the MELC as a
success six of the ten interviewees also mentioned continued coordination and cooperation as
the most significant difficulty. Interviewees added that trust issues proved a major barrier to
working together. For instance, three mentioned that individual organizations were reluctant to
share their information, knowledge, and expertise with other partners. They went on to say that
this was being addressed by focusing on effective communication between partners as well as
through the increased understanding of the roles each partner played within the MELC. Another
barrier to collaborative effectiveness was voiced by three interviewees and centered on
difficulties in ensuring organizations involvement, keeping the MELC focused, and maintaining
momentum for MELC's efforts. They said this might be a result of a lack of coordination. Many
interviewees suggested that the MELC hire or assign an individual/organization to fill the role of
Do Not Cite or Quote.
69
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
coordinator. These interviewees, however, clarified their remarks noting that too much
dependence on a coordinator may undermine the sustainability of the MELC, especially if the
coordinator were to leave.*
Seven interviewees suggested that other main challenges were the (1) inability to
generate community awareness of the existence of the MELC or the dangers of lead poisoning,
and the (2) inability to gather local support for MELC sponsored activities. Interviewees stated
that the MELC has employed an extensive outreach campaign, however, several factors have
limited the MELC's ability to work with the community. Two interviewees suggested that the
reason residents were so hesitant to take part in the project were trust issues with the
government and one interviewee thought the residents actually perceived the MELC as the
"government" rather then a collaborative including local non-government organizations. The
two interviewees added that the MELC could not build community support because the MELC
did not truly understand the community and therefore could not communicate effectively with
community residents. For example, one interviewee cited HUD's challenging application
process for home redevelopment, which inhibited parents from applying even when they were
fully aware their children had high blood lead levels. According to that interviewee, in order to
overcome this problem the MELC has its members personally accompany notices informing
parents that their children are poisoned. The MELC representative then directly assists the
residents in filling out the home redevelopment applications.
The final challenge to progress mentioned was regulatory barriers. Two interviewees
stated that none of the federal agencies involved in the partnership are able to use their money
for demolition. It was further stated that this poses a real problem in East St. Louis, since
derelict structures are one of the major hazards in the area.
Interviewee's Recommendations for improving the Partnership
Interviewees responded with many suggestions when asked how to improve the MELC
in the future. Six interviewees mentioned that increasing the number and diversity of the
participants would be beneficial. Four interviewees stated that a greater number of federal
participants could increase both the MELC's scope and effectiveness. Two other interviewees
mentioned the need for greater partner diversity within the MELC expressed through increased
participation from local political leaders and businesses. They indicated that local government
(the Mayor) should be represented in order to increase trust between the MELC and community
residents. The interviewees also stated that the MELC would benefit if it took greater strides to
include and educate landowners and landlords of the MELC's work. The interviewee's thought
this might greatly facilitate housing remediation.
Three interviewees stated the MELC could benefit most from an increase in funding.
Another interviewee commented that every entity within the partnership should help secure
funding. Three interviewees expressed that additional time spent discussing each partner's role
and the resources they could provide would be most helpful. For example, one interviewee said
every member of the partnership should have a working knowledge of every other organization
in the partnership, and be able to refer questions to appropriate individuals. Along these lines,
one interviewee mentioned that the roles of the participants be better defined within the
* It is worth mentioning that the MELC has addressed many of these challenges through
reorganizing the partnership process. According to one MELC member rotating the lead
coordinator role has increased the level of individual partner participation, fostered information
sharing, and improved the overall momentum of the project.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
70
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
collaboration in order to better coordinate the MELC's activities in the community. Further, two
interviewees mentioned that a coordinator/secretary should be used to pull the group together
and help keep it focused. Interviewees suggested that a community facilitator be used,
someone well known in the community to be part of the MELC and act as a liaison. One
interviewee mentioned a team building retreat in order to build trust.
Interviewee's Recommendations for Other Communities
Eight of the ten interviewees offered suggestions for other communities interested in
using collaborative partnerships to address EJ issues. Six stressed the importance of having
the partnership be locally led. These interviewees stressed that community organizations
should lead locally based partnerships since they are closest to the community and its
problems, and would, therefore, more easily gain the trust of local residents. Three
interviewees emphasized that local partnerships need an array of partners including
representatives from community organizations as well as federal, state, and local agencies.
They implied that this would not only increase the amount of resources available to a
collaborative but also allow for more procedural flexibility for using those resources. Along these
lines, two interviewees stated that collaborative partnerships should work to ensure that "the
right people" get involved, particularly partners with a common mission who can easily join
services and organize resources. Another interviewee recommended that partnerships work to
define roles of the collaborative members and ensure that the lines of communication between
partners stay open. In addition, one interviewee suggested that the goal of collaborative
partnerships should be to empower local residents to help themselves.
Value of the Collaborative Partnership
Interviewees gave a variety of answers when asked about the value of the collaborative
process. Nine out of the ten interviewees stated that the issues facing the East St. Louis
community would not have been addressed to the same extent, if at all, had the MELC not been
formed. However, one interviewee did comment that it "was hard to say since EPA [and many
of the other organizations in the MELC] had been working in the area for a long time." This
interviewee acknowledged that many organizations had been working in the area before the
formation of the collaborative, and suggested that it is impossible to know how much these
organizations would have accomplished separately.
Five interviewees stated that the collaborative process was most useful in stopping
redundancy of services. This was accomplished by opening the lines of communication
between MELC members, which allowed them to learn what other partners were doing in the
community and organize their resources and actions accordingly. For example, one interviewee
commented that, "Everyone is doing their own little piece of the pie," rather than trying to tackle
this large and complex problem on their own. Two stated that the collaborative process
increased individual partners' capacity to work together. They went on to say that the
collaborative process has enabled organizations within the MELC to develop a much better
understanding of what it means to work together. The lines of communication have been
opened and the organizations are more likely to work together in the future. Two interviewees
also stressed that the collaborative process resulted in a more effective outreach campaign
focused on educating residents on the dangers of lead poisoning and opportunities for
assistance. However, one interviewee did criticize the process the MELC was following. The
individual thought that this process was too slow thereby allowing gaps to form while services
were being delivered, citing as an example the two-month delay between child lead testing and
the follow-up calls to the families.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
71
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Along these lines, interviewees were asked if the MELC could be used to address similar
issues that the East St. Louis community may face in the future. Six out of eight interviewees
were very confident that the model could be used for future issues. Three mentioned that
organizations within the partnership were already thinking about how the model could be
implemented to combat asthma. One interviewee stated that the MELC model has already
been used as a basis framework for a similar collaboration in the nearby community of
Washington Park. Two interviewees, however, were skeptical. One was unsure if the residents
even knew the MELC existed, and the other did not think that the community had the resources
to further address the lead issues without continued federal intervention.
Finally, interviewees were asked if the organizational styles and procedures of different
partners were barriers in the collaborative process. No interviewee felt that the different
organizational styles limited the performance of the MELC. Several, in fact, remarked how the
MELC used the differences of the organizations to its advantage. For example, one noted that
during MELC's initial stages, participating organizations were given particular tasks that fit within
each organization's mission to help carry out and fulfill the collaborative goals. In addition,
seven out of the ten interviewees remarked that the nature of a collaborative process is to
overcome procedural restrictions. For instance, since EPA did not have the jurisdiction to test
the blood lead levels of children, two other partners took action. St. Clair County obtained a
necessary grant and St. Mary's Hospital had staff conduct the actual testing. EPA can now use
the results of the tests to direct additional federal attention on contaminated sites for cleanup in
East St. Louis.
Value of the Federal Involvement in the Partnership
Six of the eight interviewees who answered had positive things to say about federal
involvement in the MELC. Two non-federal interviewees went so far as to say that the MELC
would not have existed without the federal partners and, subsequently, the problems would not
have been addressed. Four interviewees stated that the agencies contributed funds and
expertise to the MELC. They also said that the federal agency representatives maintained open
lines of communication, were easily accessible, answered questions, and provided advice to the
other MELC members. Two said, the federal agencies helped foster a more holistic approach to
problem solving in this community. Two interviewees mentioned that federal involvement
brought attention to the affected communities and gave the project needed credibility.
When asked what the federal agencies gained by participating in the MELC six out of
seven interviewees stated that the federal agencies now have greater community awareness.
They added that the federal agencies are now better able to assess the capabilities of the
communities they are working with. One community interviewee mentioned that "we have
opened their eyes and they can see our handicaps." Interviewees representing community
partners mentioned that the agencies have gained an increased sensitivity to peoples' needs
and are aware that they have to customize the information and solutions they supply to the
communities they are dealing with. The federal agencies have learned how to listen to the
communities they are trying to help. Moreover, they are better equipped to work with the
communities rather than "tell the local representatives what to do." For instance, according to
one interviewee in East St. Louis the agencies have learned that mass mailings do not work,
and a television/radio outreach approach is best in that community. Another interviewee
commented that the federal agencies have learned how to "network" with one another and will
be better able to work together in the future.
When asked whether federal agencies have been able to better coordinate their
activities as a result of their involvement in the MELC, interviewees responded positively. All
Do Not Cite or Quote.
72
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
the interviewees stated that the federal agencies have been better able to coordinate their
activities as a result of the collaborative process. The agency representatives said that they are
coordinating better between themselves, and one even saw improvement in his/her
relationships with state agencies participating with him/her on other projects. Many
interviewees expressed that the agencies are sharing information and "thinking outside the box."
One interviewee mentioned that the agencies are coordinating to innovatively use funds and
other resources on the project. However, two interviewees did say that despite these gains the
agencies could do better. Specifically, they could do a better job of sharing information, pooling
ideas, and defining their roles within the MELC.
Interviewees were also asked what federal agencies could do in order to better
participate within community-based collaboratives. Two out of the seven interviewees that
answered this question stressed the importance that federal agencies ensure participation of
local federal agency representatives. In this case the EPA representative was stationed in
Chicago, and many of the other federal representatives had their offices well out of the East St.
Louis area. One interviewee stated that it is very important to have a community-based person
participating with the federal agencies, one that can act as a liaison between the collaborative
and the community. The interviewee made this suggestion in reference to the trust issues
between the community and the "government." This interviewee believes that the residents
equate the MELC with the "government." Two interviewees stated that the federal agencies
should better recognize their responsibility to provide funding. One added that the agencies
should better advertise the grants that are available to combat the problems facing the target
community. However, two interviewees stated that it is important for the federal agencies to be
"more hands on," and that agencies should participate in collaboratives not only with money, but
also with a willingness to share information and planning responsibilities. An interviewee said it
is important for federal agencies to work to find a collaborative model that works for the affected
community. Another stated that time should be spent identifying the problems and the
resources available to combat those problems.
Key Findings
¦	The collaborative approach used by the MELC has enabled its member organizations to
reduce duplication and improve efficiency of key activities. For instance, the coordination of
blood lead level testing, site/house remediation, and community outreach programs in East
St. Louis and the surrounding region. Without the collaborative process it is unlikely that the
problems facing the affected community would have been addressed as efficiently or
effectively.
¦	The members of the MELC regarded the collaboration as a success. However, interviewees
did see a possibility for improved local participation. Interviewees suggested that agency
representatives should have local offices in the region and that the MELC should have local
membership including local political leaders. The interviewees said that a collaborative
would achieve its goals most efficiently when it is locally lead.
¦	A major challenge faced by the MELC was a lack of trust between partner members for each
other. In order to increase trust between members it was suggested that every partner
should have a working knowledge of every other partner.
¦	The MELC has also had difficulties effectively communicating with local residents about its
programs. To overcome this the MELC has focused on improving its understanding of local
residents and modified its outreach campaigns accordingly.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
73
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
¦ Although the MELC has made significant strides to reduce risks from lead, a substantial
number of interviewees' feel that the MELC would be even more effective if the partner
organizations' roles were better defined and/or a full time coordinator was hired. Since
October 2001 the MELC has modified its procedures and better defined partner roles. This
action may have addressed the concerns voiced by the interviewees.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
74
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
6 Mew Madrid Partnership
For community there was a self- consciousness. They wanted to see a change.
There was a focus on making sure change occurred
My mayor-he asked me and several people [to participate in the Partnership]. He
told me...you go to this and represent [our community]. I participated as a
community team person and facilitator.
I've been in the agency for 24 years. That may have been the best collaborative
effort I have seen. Everyone involved took a piece of the project. Team effort all the
way.
/As far as going in there to do what the resource plan called us to do - yes. There is
always more that can be done to help the community.
— Interviewees, New Madrid Partnership
Community Historfss§
Howardville, Lilbourn, and North Lilbourn are three small rural communities grouped
closely together in the Bootheel region of Missouri, approximately 175 miles south of St. Louis
and less than five miles from the Mississippi River. Howardville and North Lilbourn are both
nearly 100 percent African American, while Lilbourn is roughly 60 percent Caucasian and 40
percent African American. Surrounded mainly by privately held farmlands, a majority of the
local residents are employed by the nearby farms, agricultural businesses,1 and industries in the
region. Neither Howardville, Lilbourn, nor North Lilbourn, however, have a sustainable
economic base and a majority of residents live in poverty and reside in substandard housing.2
Up until the late 19th century, much of Southeast Missouri was covered by water. In the
1890s, however, efforts were made to drain some of the area in order to provide additional land
for settlements and farming. Lilbourn, located just north of Howardville and just south of North
Lilbourn, was built up around a railroad junction in this region starting at the turn of the century.3
Today it is the largest of the three communities with a population of just over 2000. Howardville
and North Lilbourn were first established in the late 1930s when the Farmers' Security
Administration built housing for sharecroppers4 displaced by increased reliance on farming
machinery.5 In the following decades, Howardville and North Lilbourn, along with Lilbourn, were
beset with unemployment problems and a continued "socio-economic demise" resulting from the
region's transformation to machinery-based agriculture. Without a thriving economic base,
"[dilapidated houses, debris, and vacant lots gradually emerged as residents could not afford
household repairs or to rebuild homes that burned down." Although the communities had some
success in securing basic services, residents are faced with several environmental hazards, in
§§§§ Interviews for this case study were conducted during the weeks of September 24 and October 1,
2001. Nine separate interviews were conducted and a total of thirteen persons participated. Interviewees
included community members, representatives of local and regional organizations, and representatives of
federal agencies.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
75
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
part due to lack of funding to support local infrastructure and maintain housing. Threats include
"lead, radon, and carbon monoxide exposure resulting from substandard housing, inadequate
water and wastewater treatment, water contamination by pesticides and fertilizers; and
presence of potential disease vectors such as mosquitoes, roaches, and rats."6 Residents have
also expressed concern about use of a defoliant in nearby cotton fields that residents claim
contributes to outbreaks of asthma.
Despite common challenges and a willingness shown by community residents to work to
improve their living situations, the three communities have not always worked well together. In
196_, Lilbourn, historically the most diverse and prosperous of the three communities, secured
a safe drinking water supply. In 1965, North Lilbourn installed a connection to Lilbourn's
drinking water supply. The financial arrangement between the two, however, proved
satisfactory to no one, and for many years following, arguments between the two communities
centered on how much North Lilbourn should be charged for water use. The debate climaxed in
1995 and, after three years of assistance from a team of lawyers from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's regional office in Kansas City, an acceptable water use agreement between
the two communities was finally reached.
Around this time, the three communities showed a willingness to work together to
address some common difficulties after North Lilbourn initially sought help on its own. This
cooperative effort had its origins in 1995 when the North Lilbourn community, frustrated by the
continued economic and environmental problems facing its community, sent a letter directly to
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, asking for help. NRCS officials based in Missouri responded by holding meetings
and conducting walking tours in the community. After observing North Lilbourn's severe living
conditions7, NRCS began working with the community residents to identify and prioritize
community needs. During this time, recognizing the benefits of working together to address
common problems, Howardville and Lilbourn sought to join the partnership with NRCS and
North Lilbourn.8 All the communities and NRCS agreed to this and subsequently formed the
New Madrid Tri-Community Team.	Figme , EpA Representatton of
Tri-Community Partnership Organizational
Partnership Background	structure
After the partners concluded their
community assessments in 1997, the Tri-
Community Team and the NRCS requested
community development assistance from
numerous federal, state, and local entities. In
August 1997 NRCS hosted a large meeting in
North Lilbourn with representatives from
approximately thirty different organizations.
Among the players that emerged as key
partners, in addition to NRCS and the Tri-
Community Team, were EPA's regional office
and a regional planning organization referred
to as the Great Rivers Alliance Natural
Resource Districts (GRAND). Together, EPA,
New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership
Tri-Community Team
Technical \
Advisory
Team
Grantee
Do Not Cite or Quote.
76	Draft: 9.4.02

-------
NRCS, and GRAND***** formed an interagency agreement that defined how these organizations
would work together to best meet the needs of the New Madrid communities.
Following the formation of the original partnership, EPA's new Child Health Champion
Campaign was launched in 1997 to place added emphasis on protecting children's health. In
1998, EPA selected the Tri-Community for a Child Health Champion national pilot project.
Following its selection, the Tri-Community Partnership organized to ensure that the overarching
objectives of the Children's Health Initiative would be met. The modified partnership
organizational structure included a Community Team made up of citizens from all three
communities; a Technical Advisory Team, represented by government and community service
organizations; and a coordinating organization led by GRAND, responsible for the distribution of
project funding made available by EPA's Office of Children's Health and overall project
coordination.9 Major partners included representatives from Howardville, Lilbourn, and North
Lilbourn,10 GRAND, NRCS, EPA, the Bootheel Lead Nurses Association, the Delta Area
Economic Development Corporation, Headstarttttn, and the Lincoln University Cooperative.11
Together, these organizations agreed to a mission statement provided below that outlines their
overall vision.
Mission Statement of the New Madrid Partnership
as stated in New Madrid Child Health Champion Action Plan
Our Mission is to create self-sustaining communities by building trust, communication and
collaboration within communities of Howardvile, Lilbourn, and North Lilbourn. We will prioritize
and resolve various environmental challenges and improve the environment in our homes and
communities to protect our children from these environmental hazards.
Child Health projects were asked to identify children's environmental health hazards; set
community-specific goals; and then develop action plans to eliminate risks to children.12 EPA
provided $35,000 the first year of the project for baseline planning and assessment, and then
another $100,000 for implementation of project goals. EPA was also expected to provide
technical assistance to communities as needed. However, the process for determining baseline
information, setting goals, and developing the action plan was to be initiated and led by the
Community Team.13
Although several priority areas were identified in the initial Tri-Community needs
assessments, EPA requirements for the Child Health projects encouraged the partners to
narrow their focus to a handful of priority items. Today, the core initiatives taking place in New
Madrid center on the goals developed for the Child Health project. However, other initiatives
have taken or continue to take place in the Tri-Community area that, although related, are not
necessarily identified as core partnership activities. These include a local recycling project, an
GRAND is based in St. Louis and is closely affiliated with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Formed in 1994, GRAND's overall mission is to coordinate soil and water districts in Illinois and
Missouri.
ttttt Trj-Communities Head Start program is operated by a not-for-profit organization in Howardville.
Head Start and Early Head Start are comprehensive programs focused on young children, pregnant
women, and their families. The Head Start program is administered by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). HHS makes grants available to local public health agencies, private
organizations, Indian Tribes and school systems in order to operate Head Start programs at the
community level (September 5, 2001 http://www2.acf.dhhs.aov/proarams/hsb/about/index.htmy
Do Not Cite or Quote.
77
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
energy conservation and home weatherization project, a farmers' cooperative, and a Federal
Transit Authority Jobs Access Project.14 These efforts have received support from NRCS and
EPA, but unlike with the Child Health project, EPA and NRCS were not necessarily acting in
concert in support of these activities. For clarity, this case study will primarily focus on the work
conducted by the three communities through the Children's Health project.
Partnership Goals and Process
Starting in the summer of 1998, with the Community Team in the lead, partnership
members worked together to assemble baseline data on environmental and human health risks
and began identifying risk priorities. The first meeting took place in June and involved
community members and technical advisors. At the first meeting, attendees unanimously
agreed to a risk prioritization process that required group discussion and final agreement from
all committee-voting participants on the most important risks. The Partnership then held
meetings every two weeks through December 1998 giving experts, technical advisors, and local
residents the opportunity to provide different perspectives on the many environmental threats
facing the Tri-Communities. Simultaneously, the Partnership established committees and
subcommittees to research and formalize project plans. These committees held meetings
independently of the bi-weekly Tri-Community meetings and were rotated between Howardville
and Lilbourn to encourage greater local participation.15
In 199916, after reviewing statistics and listening to team members regarding the
environmental health risks for children, the Community Team reached full consensus on three
areas that should be addressed: childhood lead poisoning, asthma and allergies, and water
contaminants. Lead exposure was selected as a priority issue since several homes in the Tri-
Community area were built before the use of lead paint in homes was outlawed. Asthma and
allergies were primarily chosen as a priority area since most childhood illnesses in the area
requiring treatment or hospitalization are due to some form of asthma or allergy. Finally, the
issue of water contaminants was selected as a priority area since residents had long voiced
concerns regarding both their drinking water and stagnant water in the area. Specifically, the
Tri-Community Team recognized stagnant water as a common risk that can contribute to
several public health problems. The Team recognized drinking water as a potential risk since
the local water treatment facility lacked a quality control process to review effectiveness of
drinking water treatment techniques.17
Following the identification of the priority areas, the Partnership components—the
Community Team, GRAND, and the Technical Advisory Group—worked together to devise an
action plan describing how priority items would be addressed.18 The action plan was completed
in 199919 and approved for implementation by EPA's Office of Children's Health in January
2000.20 Care was taken in the action plan to provide an explanation of the priority areas along
with goals, objectives, and activities, which together, were expected to result in reduced risk
from the environmental threats. A sample from the action plan describing goals, objectives, and
activities for reducing the threat from lead poisoning is included below:
Do Not Cite or Quote.
78	Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Tri-Community Team's Efforts to Reduce Children's Exposure to Lead
	Community Goals	
Assure that 40% of all families in the Tri-Community has knowledge of the threat of lead
poisoning at no cost to the families
Provide necessary, time, place, and personnel to screen/test children in the Tri-Community for
lead poisoning at no cost to the families
Facilitate community capacity building for a more informed decision-making process resulting in
	an improved quality of life	
	Measurable Objectives	
All children in the targeted age group (6 mos. -72 mos.) in the three communities will be
	screened/tested in the next 12 months for lead poisoning at no cost to the families.	
	Activities	
Health Fair
	Lead Specific Training Workshops	
The overall approach used to address risks outlined by the Partnership involved a
combination of education, capacity building and proactive measures.21 First, the Partnership
sought to educate community members on the three priority risk areas by relying on both
outside expertise as well as trained community members. Educational opportunities were to
include a major health fair, a series of risk-specific mini-workshops, and door-to-door visits to
high-risk families. Second, capacity building was to be done by training community members as
peer facilitators in each of the three priority risk areas so they could help lead the mini-
workshops and door-to-door visits in the community. Finally, actions were to be taken to
immediately address existing problems, including planting trees and shrubbery to reduce
blowing dust in the area and reduce risks from allergies, providing in-home sampling kits to test
drinking water for insecticides, and improving stormwater drainage.
Partnership Activities
As of October 2001, most of the
activities outlined in the action plan have been
performed and the project is now considered to
be in the late stages. The health fair, designed
to educate families about the priority risks and
provide professional services to address health
care concerns related to these risks, was held in
the spring of 2000.Specifically, the health
fair involved more than twenty local health care
organizations, and provided health exhibits and
demonstrations, workshops for youth on asthma
and lead hazards, and elevated blood-lead level
tests for all children ages six and under who attended the fair. An EPA progress report
describes the health fair as very successful, with high attendance by residents from each of the
three communities. Local health care organizations have also trained at least twelve community
+++++ In May 2000, the New Madrid Partnership was selected by the Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice to be showcased as a national demonstration project. Interviewees did not
reference this designation during the interview process.
Figure 2. EPA Representation of
New Madrid Partnership Approach
New Madrid Partnership Approach to
Address Priority Risks

Educate Community


Build Community Capacity


Take Proactive Actions


Do Not Cite or Quote.
79
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
members to help lead the mini-workshops on the priority risk areas. Several mini-workshops
focused on lead and asthma/allergies involving the community facilitators have been conducted
and, as of October 2001, were still on going. As a result of the health fair and mini-workshops,
approximately 2,000 adults and 800 children in the Tri-Community area have been educated
about the priority risks.22
Approximately 150 trees for windbreaks have also been planted in North Lilbourn to
reduce blowing dust from the surrounding agricultural fields. However, according to one partner
interviewed, the trees died because of poor timing and soil conditions. Tree planting was
scheduled for the other two communities for the spring of 2001, but it is unclear from project
documents whether this has been completed. Remaining activities include lead and asthma
home visits and activities associated with water quality. Mini-workshops focused on water
quality were scheduled for the fall of 2001.
Further, although not stated as an activity in the action plan, securing partners and
funding has been an instrumental partnership activity. As of October 1, 2001, the Partnership
consists of fifteen partners including federal, regional, state, local and community organizations
plus the direct involvement of each of the town's mayors. Although financial dollars made
available from EPA's Office of Children's Health has been key in ensuring that several major
activities could take place, volunteer contributions from the Community Team have served as
the foundation for this effort. Made up of the mayors plus six members from each town, the
Community Team assisted with soliciting community input, project coordination and the health
education of the Tri-Community citizens. Also instrumental has been the work of GRAND,
NRCS, and EPA. GRAND distributed project funds made available by EPA and supported a
project advisor and coordinator. The NRCS Midwest Office committed both technical and
capacity building assistance. EPA, through its regional office, also provided considerable
technical and capacity building assistance in the three priority risk areas.
In addition, state, local, and academic partners played important roles. Missouri's
Department of Natural Resources23 and Department of Conservation24 provided technical
advice and resources, and Missouri's Department of Public Health provided educational
information on the three priority risks. Locally, the New Madrid County Health Department, the
Bootheel Nurses Association, the Howardville Headstart program provided health information,
health screens and referrals, and the Delta Area Economic Development Corporation, another
local partner, helped run educational workshops.25 At the university level, the Lincoln University
Cooperative Extension program trained Tri-Community Team members on safe-drinking water
approaches and conducted water testing; the St. Louis Institute of Technology trained Tri-
Community residents on techniques for lead removal in the home; and the Lincoln University
Community Development Corporation provided necessary telecommunications assistance to
ensure that the training on lead could take place. Furthermore, organizations including the
Southeast Missouri Health Network helped sponsor certain partnership activities.26
The following sections primarily describe interviewees' responses to questions gathered
from interviews conducted by EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation during the
weeks of September 24 and October 1, 2001. The sections focus on interviewees' impressions
regarding measuring partnership success, partnership success and challenges,
recommendations for improving the Partnership, overall value of the Partnership, and the value
of federal involvement in the Partnership.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
80
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Measuring Partnership Progress
From the beginning of EPA's effort to sponsor a series of Child Health demonstration
projects around the country, EPA's Office Children's Health (OCH) placed significant emphasis
on evaluation. For its evaluation approach, OCH required that each Child Health project
develop a plan to monitor and evaluate progress in meeting project goals and objectives. OCH
hoped that by encouraging Child Health project communities to more systematically document
their successes and lessons learned, EPA would build the evaluation capacity of these
communities, resulting in greater sustainability of their projects. Using the individual Child
Project evaluations as a foundation, OCH then hoped to use these results to inform a larger
national evaluation of Child Health projects that would help it better understand whether the pilot
projects worked as expected as well as other issues, and bring lessons learned to new
communities interested in trying similar approaches.27
For individual project evaluation plans, each Child Health project was required describe
how the Community Team expects to track and evaluate: (1) the progress of its efforts to reach
intermediate and final outcomes; (2) the team-building and management process; and (3) the
cost to implement the different project activities. However, after recognizing the difficulty that
Community Teams were having in developing their action plans, EPA had its evaluation
consulting firm, Mathematica Policy Research (MPR), assist Community Teams with this
effort.28 MPR gave Community Teams wide latitude to develop evaluation plans that would be
most conducive to their priority risks and related activities.
For the Tri-Communities project, MPR made two field visits to New Madrid County to
meet with project members, review New Madrid's evaluation plan, and assess project progress.
The Community Team made plans to collect both qualitative and quantitative data.29
Specifically, health fair attendance was to be documented, and lead screening rates for New
Madrid were to be reviewed before and after lead intervention efforts. Training workshops were
to be assessed by reviewing participant satisfaction and knowledge and awareness levels.
Asthma reduction efforts were to be evaluated by collecting and comparing data on asthma
triggers in homes and school absences before and after one-on-one home visits.30 MPR made
generic templates available that the Community Team could modify for its own data collection
purposes.31 It is not clear from project documents, however, whether the Community Team's
tracking and evaluation plan has been implemented.
During interviews conducted by EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, in
the fall of 2001, interviewees were asked how the New Madrid Partnership was measuring
project success. Two interviewees directly referenced the evaluation plan, while several
interviewees identified specific measures for the priority risk they were focusing on that
paralleled the measures described above. For instance, one interviewee stated that success in
addressing asthma/allergies would be measured by reviewing the number of missed school
days due to asthma/allergies before and after the asthma workshops. Another interviewee
provided more general measures of success, which included setting goals, enabling the
communities to work together, and restoring community pride.
Partnership Successes
When asked if partners were satisfied with their ability to participate in the project
decision-making process, seven of the nine interviewees who addressed the question
responded positively. However, one of the seven did not approve of the way that the three
priority risk areas were selected. Further, two interviewees explained that they did not feel their
role was to be involved in the decision-making, but rather to focus on capacity building.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
81
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Regarding whether interviewees were satisfied to the extent issues most important to them and
their organizations were being addressed by the partnership, six of the seven addressing this
question indicated they were satisfied. One interviewee provided an ambiguous response.
When asked about the outcomes, or results, of the partner activities for addressing the
main issues of the affected community, all eleven interviewees responded positively. In terms
of specific outcomes, however, interviewees did not reveal a strong agreement around any one
type of outcome.§§§§§ One mentioned by three interviewees centered on increasing the
awareness of the community regarding the three priority health risks. Three separate
interviewees remarked that that the partnership has fostered a spirit of working together, with
one also adding that it fostered community pride. More generally, three interviewees noted that
the Partnership has had positive impacts. For instance, one interviewee explained that the
partnership efforts have made living conditions a lot better. Two interviewees, one already
referenced, remarked that the partnership efforts resulted in boosted capacity of the community.
For instance, one explained that the community could now use tools to gain assistance and
provide assistance to them. Finally, another interviewee explained that the Partnership has
generated a positive spirit.
When asked whether interviewees were satisfied with the outcomes of partner activities,
five of the ten addressing this topic indicated they were satisfied, one interviewee indicated
she/he was satisfied but would like to see more done for the partnership communities, three
were somewhat satisfied, and one interviewee provided an ambiguous response, all
interviewees addressing this topic indicated they were satisfied. One interviewee expressed
concern about the viability of the project once funding was discontinued. Along these same
lines, another interviewee remarked that more work could be done with the Tri-Communities. In
addition, another interviewee expressed regret at the lack of progress made on water issues.
Early reports describe overall project activities as having been very successful in
meeting project objectives. Interviewees confirmed this impression as well. In addition, several
interviewees remarked that two related, but more difficult to measure outcomes, of these
activities have been the fostering of community pride and the improved ability of each
community to work together.
Despite overall satisfaction with project activities, interviewees were not in agreement on
what has been the greatest success of the project so far. Four of the ten interviewees
addressing this question commented that the Partnership's focus on the community was it's
greatest success. For example, three interviewees remarked that the greatest success has
been community empowerment, noting that the knowledge developed for this project as a result
of the health fair, training of community people as facilitators, and mini-workshops, will stay
within the Tri-Communities. Two interviewees cited lead testing of children as the projects'
greatest success. Another two interviewees cited improved agency understanding between
EPA and NRCS. And one interviewee suggested that the project's greatest success was the
formation of the farmer's cooperative, an initiative associated with, but not directly related to the
Child Health project.
Similar to this last interviewee's comment, an additional success may be the increased
number of initiatives taking place in the Tri-Communities that, while not directly related to the
Child Health project, may be an indirect result of the positive work initiated by the Tri-
§§§§§ Dicing the interview process, interviewees were asked questions about both the outcomes of partner activities,
and the impact of activities for the affected communities. From the responses, it was clear that most interviewees
viewed the partnership activities in terms of outcomes, not impact. Therefore, the term outcome is used throughout
this discussion.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
82
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Community Partnership. For instance, one EPA progress report emphasizes that since the
start of the New Madrid Children's Health project, this single effort has "grown into a full blown
initiative" including a North Lilbourn recycling project, an energy conservation and home
weatherization project, the farmers' cooperative mentioned above, and a transportation jobs
access project.32
Partnership Challenges
When asked about the greatest challenge facing the Partnership, interviewees gave
several different responses. The most common theme, however, focused on the difficulties of
working together. For instance, three interviewees remarked that simply getting the
communities to work together has been the biggest obstacle to success. One of these stated
that this was due to the fact a project like this had never been tried before and was overcome
because residents recognized that their overall goal was to help children. Another remarked
that this difficulty had been resolved because of communication and leadership shown by
GRAND's advisor, GRAND's local coordinator, and EPA's regional office. Another interviewee
suggested that forming the action plan was the biggest challenge because of the difficulty in
working with many different people. The interviewee added that this had been overcome
through discussion. Two additional interviewees remarked that competing interests between
the participating communities had been major obstacles to success, with one noting that this
had been overcome through communication. In addition, one of the same interviewees noted
that racial issues between the communities had served as a major barrier to success, remarking
that this too was overcome through communication.
In addition to the difficulties faced by working together, interviewees cited other
obstacles as well. Three interviewees cited communication issues as a problem. One
commented on the poor quality and lack of communication during the project's formation.
Specifically, the interviewee remarked that initially outside partners showed a lack of respect for
the knowledge community residents had and failed to communicate and dialogue with the
community on the objectives of the project. Related to this obstacle, one interviewee from a
federal agency remarked that gaining the community's trust initially in the process was a
challenge, indicating that not until "things materialized" did the agency feel they had the
community's trust. In addition, this interviewee remarked that becoming accustomed to the
different styles of other participating agencies was also a challenge. Another interviewee
commented on the current state of project communication, specifically noting that the GRAND
headquarters office needed more communication with federal agencies issuing project grant
monies and partners actually implementing project activities. Another interviewee commented
that implementing some of the water-related activities described in the action plan had been the
biggest challenge. Finally, one interviewee remarked that an important challenge was obtaining
parental support for child lead testing. This was overcome, however, through parental
education about lead.
Interviewees were also asked whether the organizational styles and procedures of the
different partner organizations limited effective collaboration between partners. Most responses
centered on the difficulties that EPA and NRCS faced when initially starting to work together.
Interviewees noted that NRCS and EPA have two distinct styles: 1) NRCS is focused on
technical assistance whereas EPA has a stronger regulatory focus; and 2) NRCS encourages a
"locally-led process" for local projects, whereas EPA, through its Community Based
Environmental Protection approach, has tended to play a more "hands-on" role in locally based
projects. Although a positive relationship developed between EPA and NRCS, the contrasting
styles and approaches, as well as the personalities involved, created obstacles for both
organizations early on in the process. According to two interviewees, these differences were
Do Not Cite or Quote.
83
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
resolved through communication and setting ground rules. In addition, one of these
interviewees added that the involvement of a project advisor supported by GRAND was also
critical.
Interviewees cited other organizational barriers as well. Three interviewees commented
that certain agency requirements placed on funding made it difficult to purchase needed items
for the Partnership. For instance, although tree planting was designated in the action plan,
project money from EPA could not be used to actually purchase trees. In addition, one
interviewee noted that certain health agency requirements created an initial challenge for
conducting lead screening. According to interviewees, however, creative thinking enabled the
project partners to get around these challenges. For example, the project was able to obtain the
trees through donation and conduct lead screening by holding a health fair. Finally, one
interviewee noted that conflicts arose when individuals participating in the Partnership served on
more than one of the partnering organizations.
Interviewees' Recommendations for improving the Partnership
Interviewees had few common suggestions for improving the future of the Partnership,
due in part, perhaps, to the partners' overall level of satisfaction for the project. Two
interviewees suggested ensuring that the project has a project manager, one who can ably
grasp the overall vision and goals as well as the project details. Two interviewees also
commented on the need for continued communication. Specifically, one interviewee
recommended that this be done by re-starting a group meeting process that occurred early on
between EPA, NRCS, and GRAND but has since been discontinued. However, the meetings
should be less frequent (e.g., once a month) and a community liaison should participate. A
second interviewee suggested that the Partnership must stay focused on communication,
dialogue, and openness between partners, and stay dedicated. Another interviewee suggested
that the Partnership host a final ceremony at the project's end, similar to what was done at the
project's beginning in order to provide a sense of closure for participants. Other suggestions
included establishing one common meeting space for partnership members to meet, giving
additional respect to local residents, allowing local residents to take full control over the project,
and emphasizing patience.
interviewees' Recommendations for Other Communities
Interviewees had several suggestions for improving future partnerships. Five of the nine
interviewees who addressed this issue emphasized the need for ensuring clear, up-front
communication about partner roles and responsibilities. One interviewee stressed that the New
Madrid partnership would have proved more effective if in the early stages all partners could
have sat down together and clearly explained what each commitments to the Partnership were
to be. One interviewee also emphasized the need for participating federal agencies to work
closely together to understand what their roles would be vis-a-vis each other and decide who
would serve as the overall federal agency lead. The interviewee went on to suggest that if one
agency can't identify itself as the federal lead, they both end up sending conflicting messages to
the community.
Three interviewees emphasized the need for partnerships to stay focused on what they
are trying to accomplish. One interviewee added that using facilitators to provide overall
direction is critical. Two more interviewees suggested that partners be open-minded, with one
adding that federal agencies should focus on more than just statistics when they are
determining how best to help communities. Another set of interviewees stressed that partners
in collaborative approaches must be patient, obtain local support, and look for "out of the box"
Do Not Cite or Quote.
84
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
solutions. Other recommendations include focusing on communication, getting the whole
community involved, identifying one local partner member who has experience working with
federal agencies, keeping partnership activities transparent, providing transportation for partners
if necessary, and obtaining parental consent if children's health activities are planned. Finally,
one interviewee recommended that one contact person be made available in each community
or county that can answer questions community residents may have about issues related to
public health and the environment.
Value of Collaborative Partnership
When asked directly about the value of addressing issues through a collaborative
partnership approach, most interviewees commented on the additional and shared resources
associated that partnerships can provide. One interviewee noted that in a partnership, if one
organization is not able to contribute the needed resources the Partnership can network and
look to another partner to provide support. Another interviewee commented that through shared
resources, the Partnership is capable of addressing multiple stages of a problem. Other values
of partnership approaches expressed by interviewees include improved understanding between
organizations, increased capability to identify issues and problems facing affected communities,
and a greater diversity of experience from which to draw upon. In addition, one interviewee
noted that the collaborative partnership is a non-traditional approach that can be very useful
mechanism for addressing issues in non-traditional communities.
When asked whether the collaborative process could be used to address other issues
that the New Madrid Tri-Communities are facing, nine of the nine persons who addressed this
question indicated that the process could certainly be used again. Three interviewees were
confident that once the project concluded, a model would be firmly in place to be used again.
Others added qualifications to their statements. One indicated that the collaborative model,
along with the capacity building skills that had been transferred to the Tri-Communities as a
result of the project, would enable other issues to be addressed through a similar process.
Another interviewee remarked that the model would work, but a challenge for the existing
project stems from some groups being still unwilling to participate in the process. Finally, in a
related comment, one interviewee noted that the collaborative process will effectively address
other issues depending on who does or does not participate.
Interviewees were also asked whether the main issues facing the Tri-Communities
would have been addressed without using a collaborative approach. Of the eight who
addressed this question, three stated simply that the issues would not have been addressed.
For instance, one interviewee stated that continued concerns over allocation of resources
between the communities would have discouraged any effective work in the area. Five of the
eight felt that some of the issues would have been addressed, but probably to a lesser extent,
and some would not have been addressed at all. For example one agency interviewee
remarked that the interviewee's agency would have addressed what was allowable given
standard operating procedures, but the interviewee would have never thought to contact an
outside agency.
Value of Federal Involvement in the Partnership
When asked about the effect of having federal agencies participate in the New Madrid
Partnership responses fell into three categories: resources, knowledge, and credibility. Of the
seven who addressed this question, six identified resources as the key ingredient that the
federal agencies provided. One interviewee explained that the project could not have been
implemented without federal money. Another explained that because of federal involvement the
Do Not Cite or Quote.
85
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
communities received a significant amount of high quality training. Closely related to the
category of resources is knowledge. Three interviewees specifically commented on the
information that the federal agencies shared that helped improve the project. For example, one
cited the federal agencies' broad understanding of available resources and willingness to share
that information as being very important to project success. Another interviewee noted that the
federal agencies greatly assisted by their continual willingness to answer questions, offer
guidance, and provide coaching tips for the Partnership project teams. In addition, two
interviewees remarked how federal involvement brought an increased level of credibility to the
project. For instance, one remarked that without external assurance from federal agencies,
communities could feel nervous about addressing environmental issues for fear of opening up a
"Pandora's box." With federal involvement, however, communities feel confident they can move
forward. In a related comment, one interviewee noted that when federal agencies get involved,
communities feel that work may happen at a more rapid pace. Finally, one interviewee
observed that despite the benefits of federal involvement, EPA's presence in the Tri-
Communities intimidated farmers in the area. However, the interviewee felt positively about the
about the Partnership and did not suggest this hampered the Partnership's ability to function
effectively.
When asked what federal partners have gained by participating in the New Madrid
Partnership, responses fell into three categories: better understanding of the community, the
right to claim success at the local level, and ability to use this model for future partnerships.
Four of the nine persons addressing this issue indicated that the federal agencies gained an
improved understanding of how to work with communities. For example, one remarked that by
working in these communities, the participating federal agencies gained perspective, learning
first hand how some of their policies and regulations impact the local level. Similarly, a fifth
interviewee stated that the agencies gained an improved understanding of the Tri-Communities,
including knowledge about their residents and public health problems. Three interviewees
stated that federal agencies gained the right to say they were successful. Specifically, two
noted that federal agencies could claim success as a result of their effective cooperation with
other organizations. Two other interviewees remarked that federal agencies gained the ability
to use or participate in collaborative partnerships at other sites in the future. Related, another
interviewee also remarked that federal agencies gained additional experience in regards to
networking and better project management skills.
Only six interviewees addressed whether federal agencies have been able to better
coordinate their activities as a result of their involvement in the New Madrid Partnership. Three
said yes, and three were equivocal, indicating that they were not sure. One agency interviewee
who responded affirmatively felt very strongly that collaboration had indeed increased. The
interviewee noted that the NRCS Midwest and EPA regional offices have met a few times and
recently made plans to partner together to identify and work with other distressed communities.
Of the three who were equivocal, one stated flatly that it was not clear whether coordination has
improved. Another remarked that although federal agencies may have been better able to
coordinate their efforts for this project, the key reason for this was the personalities involved,
and there is no indication that effective coordination will occur in future similar efforts. A third
interviewee was doubtful that effective collaboration occurred in the New Madrid project, noting
that in the beginning of the New Madrid project, only NRCS was visible, but towards the end,
only EPA was. The interviewee then added that most of the effective collaboration seemed to
occur between the individual federal agencies and the community, not necessarily with each
other.
Interviewees were also asked what federal agencies could do to be more effective
partners in local collaborative efforts. Interviewees offered several different suggestions ranging
Do Not Cite or Quote.
86
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
from improving communication skills to better understanding the communities. Four of nine
recommendations centered on the need for federal agencies to stay open-minded when working
in collaboratives. Particularly, two of these interviewees emphasized the need to use more than
statistics when determining how to best help communities, and one stressed not letting
regulations prohibit involvement. In addition, three interviewees stressed the importance of
coordinating resources between federal agencies. Two interviewees, in particular, remarked
that agencies should focus more on getting the job done than their independence, and use an
umbrella coordinator, similar to GRAND, to ensure that the needed collaborative work will be
implemented. Other recommendations included entrusting the community to lead the
partnerships, developing a better understanding of the community before partnering, staying
committed to and honest within the partnership, setting ground rules, trying a different approach
if the current one is not working, and avoiding taking partnership issues personally.
In addition, one agency interviewee stressed that the key to best participating in a
collaborative partnership is by educating yourself about who your federal partners are and the
resources they have available. Speaking from experience, the interviewee explained that to do
this, it is important to invite federal partners to your agency meetings, such as environmental
justice forums, and meet with federal partners in one-on-one meetings. Interestingly, another
agency interviewee remarked that federal agencies do not need to tailor their roles to best
participate; rather, since they already have expertise, they should come to the table ready to
use their expertise to accomplish the goals of the project.
Key Findings
¦	Participants overall are satisfied with the Partnership's progress and outcomes of the
Partnership's activities. However, concerns have been raised regarding the progress of
the water-related activities and additional work that will still be necessary in the Tri-
Communities once the Child Health project has ended in order to genuinely enhance
quality of life.
¦	Without a collaborative process, it is unlikely that community concerns would have been
addressed as effectively as they are now. The New Madrid Partnership has brought
shared and additional resources and enabled creative solutions to problems.
¦	One of the Partnership's key strengths has been its focus on community involvement
and capacity building. Not only have the participating community representatives been
in the lead for determining priority risks, the community representatives actively sought
input from other community members that weren't directly participating in the project. In
addition, community representatives have been trained in facilitation and in the priority
risk areas, better ensuring that the knowledge gained as part of the project will stay
within the community, and that the Tri-Communities will find it easier to prioritize and
devise solutions to risks or other challenges their communities currently face or will face
in the future.
¦	Another key strength of the project has been the working relationship between NRCS,
EPA, and GRAND. Arguably, without effective cooperation between these
organizations, it is doubtful that the New Madrid Partnership would have experienced the
success it currently does.
¦	Use of a detailed action plan developed with significant community involvement has
enabled project participants to better understand how they fit within the overall project
framework and made it easier to keep the project focused and monitor progress.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
87
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
However, use of the action plan to drive the project implementation has, perhaps, had
the unintended effect of limiting other activities that the Partnership engages in.
¦ It is unclear how the other on-going initiatives taking place in the Tri-Communities, such
as the farmer's cooperative and the home weatherization project are associated with the
Child Health project. If these activities take place outside an integrated coordination
process, local residents as well as outside parties may find it difficult to understand how
these different parts fit together and important opportunities for synergy may be lost.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
88
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
< rv c: f ::: " p
In the beginning there was no cooperative spirit. Early the community was not happy
with the current state of affairs.
Harold made the first step reaching out.. .saying we want you to be involved and
asked for our input.
The community group is the driver and the most important partners are the local
government partners.
Now we actually have federal, state, local, and community all sitting down talking
about the same issue. Previously only adversarial stances were taken.. .[Now]
everyone more or less sharing the same vision.
This has been a real coming of age for people in the community. So much face-to-
face contact. It caused local people to recognize the extent of resources available.
— Interviewees, ReGenesis Partnership
Community History *****
The County and City of Spartanburg are located in the upper northwest region of South
Carolina. Since 1970, the county's population nearly doubled from 174,000 in 1970 to over
250,000 today.The City has remained at around 40,000 since that time but is located in
the center of an urban area that supports an estimated 115,000 people. Coupled with the
increases in population has been the Spartanburg region's gradual transformation from a
traditional textile-based economy to a much more diversified one. By most indicators, the
Spartanburg area has been thriving over the past several years. The County now hosts more
than 115 internationally owned firms, and the City is currently undergoing a major downtown
revitalization effort that, through a $75 million public/private partnership, will bring a major hotel,
an office park, and a golf-learning center to the downtown area.2
Despite the prosperous economy, at least one section of the City has not benefited from
the economic expansion. The Arkwright and Forest Park neighborhoods are located just
beyond the City's major downtown area. This community has a 96 percent African American
population in a county that is predominantly Caucasian and a city that is essentially half African
American and half Caucasian.3 Established around textile mills and other industrial facilities,
this community has been faced with the negative consequences of mill and plant closure.4 The
area has not benefited from any significant commercial development for several years and
Interviews for this case study were primarily conducted during the week of October 1, 2001. Two
additional interviews were conducted in late November. Fourteen separate interviews were conducted
and a total of sixteen persons participated. Interviews were conducted with representatives of community
organizations, staff of local and federal political representatives, federal, state, and local government
agencies, a company, a local college, a consulting firm, and a regional environmental organization,
tttttt current population total of Spartanburg County equals 253, 791 (75.1% Caucasian and 20.8%
African American).
Do Not Cite or Quote.
89
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
residents have difficulty accessing groceries, restaurants, or other shops unless they drive or
take a cab to other more affluent5 parts of the city.6
Most notably, however, the Arkwright and Forest Park community residents live near
several actual and potentially contaminated sites and an operating industrial plant. Residential
neighborhoods in Arkwright are closely intertwined with industrial areas due to minimal local
land use controls before 1976 and "a continued lack of zoning restrictions."7 The areas of most
concern to local residents are a 40-acre site of an abandoned (and now deconstructed) fertilizer
plant referred to as the International Mineral and Chemicals (IMC) site, a 30-acre former
municipal dump, and an operating chemical plant located on a 35-acre site owned by Rhodia
Inc. Approximately 4,700 residents live within one mile of the site, 200 live within %-mile of the
landfill,8 and a handful of residents live adjacent to the chemical plant boundary.
The many economic, environmental, health, and public safety concerns that residents
have attributed to these sites have prompted some to refer to this area collectively as the
"Devil's Triangle." Residents have stated that "[f]or decades, [they] have endured dump truck
traffic, smoke and fumes from landfill fires, and odors from the two industries."9 Residents have
also stated that "there is a high percentage of cancer in the neighborhoods, especially lung,
bone, and colon cancer."10 In addition, residents report that the area supports a high rate of
infant mortality, miscarriages, and birth defects.11 One resident also explained that from
January 2000 to July 2000, 24 people living within %-mile of the dump had died.12 Beyond
health concerns, locals have reportedly seen their housing values fall since the 1970s.13
Community members suggest that new residents cannot move in because of their concerns
regarding the facilities and contaminated sites, and current ones are unable to move out
because they lack the resources to do so.14
ReGenesis
During the 1990s residents in the neighborhoods of Arkwright and Forest Park began to
inquire about the contaminated sites and put pressure on government agencies to clean them
up. One person in particular, Harold Mitchell, grew increasingly concerned about what he saw
as an alarming number of deaths and incidences of diseases in his neighborhood. Then in
1998 he founded ReGenesis, a local environmental justice organization made up of residents
from the affected neighborhoods. ReGenesis' leader galvanized membership after explaining to
residents the type of hazardous chemicals used in the fertilizer plant's production processes,
which had never been revealed to the community.15 Soon after, ReGenesis began aggressively
pursuing further investigation into the abandoned sites. While initially focusing on getting the
sites cleaned up, ReGenesis' attention soon began turning to the revitalization of the entire
area.16 Today, with over 1,400 members from the affected area, this community-based and
community-driven organization17 continues to have strong support from the community and is
the primary body responsible for consulting with government agencies on the cleanup of the
contaminated sites in the area. In particular ReGenesis is working closely with government
agencies to ensure clean up of the former Arkwright Dump site and the abandoned fertilizer
plant. ReGenesis also participates in periodic meetings with the operating chemical plant in the
area to address concerns raised by community members. Finally, ReGenesis serves as the
main point of contact for the ReGenesis Partnership, a broad-based multi-stakeholder effort to
revitalize the Arkwright and Forest Park areas.
Abandoned Arkwright Dump
The Arkwright Dump opened in 1954. According to a government report, it was
purchased by the City and reportedly used for disposal of municipal, medical, and automotive
Do Not Cite or Quote.
90
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
wastes. It operated with relatively little oversight until it was closed in 1972 and capped with a
thin layer of topsoil. In 1976 the site was sold to a private citizen. Virtually no records exist for
the facility. Nearby residents continue to have open access to the dump area where thin
vegetation covers the waste and debris.18 In early 1997, Harold Mitchell began to investigate
the impact of the nearby abandoned dump and fertilizer plant sites on the Arkwright
community.19 In February 1998, Mr. Mitchell raised the issue of the abandoned dump to the
attention of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regional office in Atlanta.20
South Carolina's state environmental agency subsequently became involved. State personnel
conducted an initial walk-through of the site, finding no immediate health threats.21 After
receiving the appropriate paperwork from the state agency, EPA had discussions with
community residents and a consultation with the state agency, and ultimately chose to take the
lead in evaluating the site.22
Between October 1998 and May 1999, EPA sampling efforts at the site indicated
contaminants in the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment.23 At EPA's request, the
U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) then conducted a preliminary
health assessment based upon EPA's sampling data. ATSDR's report indicated that the
contaminants did not constitute a health threat, but added that more extensive data gathered
during EPA's in-depth site evaluation could change their initial assessment and recommended
additional investigation of the site.24 EPA then made a determination to cleanup the site using a
traditional Superfund process®® in order to address long-term environmental and human
health risks.25 In November 1999, the City signed a voluntary agreement with EPA, referred to
as an Administrative Order on Consent,26 committing the City to conduct a two-part study of the
abandoned landfill, assessing contamination levels at the site and determining options for
cleanup.27 Although the City's agreement with EPA does not commit the City to address the
site, EPA expects the City and other groups who have previously contributed waste to the
landfill to participate in the site activities. EPA anticipates that the second part of this study will
be completed in the spring of 2002.28§§§§§§
Abandoned Fertilizer Plant
The abandoned fertilizer plant, located directly northwest of the landfill, opened in 1910
and continued to operate until closing in 1986. The facility, owned by IMC Global, was then left
idle and began to deteriorate.29 During its operations it employed many residents from the
Arkwright community. Despite being a significant local employer, residents questioned the
effects its operations were having on the community. In prior interviews conducted with former
IMC employees and Arkwright residents by EPA, interviewees noted that at times the
neighborhood had been filled with acid smells from the facility. They also noted that the acid or
particles from the plant had corroded the aluminum siding on their homes, roofing materials, and
the paint on their cars.30 Between 1991 and 1995, South Carolina's environmental department
required three groundwater assessment investigations, and continuous periodic sampling of
groundwater, at the site. Groundwater contaminants during that time, and remaining at present,
include several metals, nitrate, and fluoride. Based on the levels detected, which are above
groundwater standards, South Carolina's environmental department had required further
investigation via deeper wells, and additional wells, but had not required groundwater cleanup
Although EPA Region 4 is addressing contamination at the Arkwright Dump site through traditional
Superfund means, the Arkwright Dump site has not been placed onto the National Priorities List (NPL),
which is the list of the nation's most hazardous sites; instead, EPA is addressing the Arkwright site
through an "NPL-equivalent process." Region 4 has a number of sites being addressed in this manner.
The term "NPL-Equivalent" has been used by Region 4 to denote such sites.
§§§§§§ Qn AUgUSt 0 2002, EPA presented its "Proposed Plan" for site cleanup to the community in a public
meeting. A Record of Decision is expected in September 2002.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
91
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
actions as of 1995.31 As discussed above, in early 1997, Harold Mitchell began to investigate
the impact of the nearby abandoned dump and fertilizer plant sites on the Arkwright
community.32 An initial review by EPA found no immediate public health threat from the site;
however, EPA, subsequently, began more intensive investigations under the Superfund
process.33 An expanded site investigation by EPA, began in January 199934, revealed several
chemicals of concern at concentrations above background levels.35
During EPA's expanded site investigation, the then private owner of the site, who had
purchased the abandoned facility from IMC in the late 1980s, began an unauthorized demolition
of the plant in June 1998.36 South Carolina's state environmental agency halted the demolition
within hours, and later issued the owner a Notice of Violation and fine for the violation of local
and state regulations.37 Soon after, concerned about the site conditions, Vigindustries Inc., a
subsidiary of IMC Global, purchased back the fertilizer plant site,38 and put in place a
deconstruction plan developed in cooperation with nearby residents, Vigindustries, and
appropriate federal, state, and local officials to ensure the safe deconstruction of the facility.39
Deconstruction took place under State and EPA oversight over the summer and fall of 2000.40
During this time, IMC staff and ReGenesis began to work cooperatively to address more long-
term clean up issues while EPA's investigation continued.41 IMC appeared ready to see that the
fertilizer plant site would be redeveloped in accordance with ReGenesis' overall revitalization
goals for the area after the clean up activities were completed. By the summer of 2000,
however, the cooperation ended as over 1,200 residents filed suit in federal court against IMC
Global, according to a local newspaper report, accuses the company of "multiple offenses,
including assault and battery through the release of toxic chemicals, concealing facts about
environmental dangers and practicing environmental racism in the predominantly black
community."42 With the legal battles still ongoing, in July 2001, Vigindustries signed an
Administrative Order on Consent with EPA. Similar to the agreement signed between EPA and
the City over the Arkwright dump, the order commits Vigindustries to conduct a two-part study of
the fertilizer site, assessing the level of contamination at the site and determining options for
cleanup.43
Operating Chemical Plant
The operating chemical plant is directly south of the abandoned fertilizer site, bounded to
the east by the Arkwright Dump, and bounded to the west by a railroad line. Residences begin
just off the chemical company's fence line. In 1975 a South Carolinian businessman purchased
the Arkwright Dump and opened up a chemical warehouse next to the site. However, residents
living in the community at the time state that they were told the site would be used to develop
low-income housing. After a few years, the chemical warehouse became an operating chemical
plant.44 In 1998, Rhodia, an international specialty chemical company,45 purchased the plant.
Recently EPA recognized Rhodia as a member in its new EPA Performance Track Program and
the state recognized Rhodia with a pollution prevention environmental award.46 Despite these
special designations by the federal and state government, many residents in the Arkwright and
Forest Park areas feel strongly that a chemical company nearby is incompatible with their plans
to improve quality of life and would like to see the facility relocated. Rhodia reviewed the option
to relocate but found it prohibitively expensive. Rhodia is now working to build better relations
with the community. In addition to reaching out to better gauge community concerns and
introducing more local residents to the facility operations through open houses, Rhodia is
currently undergoing a series of facilitated dialogue sessions with ReGenesis in an attempt to
address issues of contention and identify best how it can participate in the ReGenesis' plans to
redevelop the area.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
92
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Partnership Background
The members of ReGenesis initially framed the revitalization vision for the Arkwright and
Forest Park community. Soon after, however, ReGenesis began openly sharing its hopes with
the broader Spartanburg community and other potentially interested organizations. ReGenesis
directly asked these groups to participate in the visioning process and add their own input. To
do this, ReGenesis engaged potential partners in one-on-one discussions and hosted a series
of forums starting in January 2000. ReGenesis sought the input of local, state and federal
government agencies, business, and non-profits, as well as a full spectrum of political
representatives. This strong emphasis on collaboration also led to the identification of the
ReGenesis partnership as an Environmental Justice Demonstration Project by the Interagency
Working Group in May 2000.
ReGenesis Partnership
Partners
Partners
Environmental	Justice
Demonstration Project
member. This group,
representing the core of the
ReGenesis Partnership,
comes together periodically
to discuss progress and
strategies for meeting the
project goals. Further, a
special EPA Spartanburg
Workgroup meets monthly to
coordinate its Spartanburg
activities, often conducting
conference calls with
members of the core
partnership group. In
addition, the steering
committee periodically calls
full partner meetings to
provide updates and discuss
issues of concern. A final
critical element to the
Partnership, still in its
infancy, is the formation of
seven subcommittees that will each focus on a particular project element. The formation of
these subcommittees is expected to provide a variety of different partners the opportunity to
play a more extensive role in the project and increase the likelihood that specific components of
the project will be implemented.
Steering Committee
ReGenesis
City, County
EPA

Subcommittee


Subcommittee 2


Subcommittee 3


Subcommittee 4


Subcommittee


Subcommittee


Subcommittee

Following a second forum in August 2000, ReGenesis, along with representatives from
the City, County, and EPA's southeast regional branch formed a steering committee to guide
overall project implementation. The City became involved because of its role in the clean up
and redevelopment of the Arkwright Dump. The County participated because much of the area
ReGenesis hopes to redevelop falls within the jurisdiction of the County. EPA joined primarily
because of its cleanup roles
with the Arkwright Dump and	Figure 1. EPA Representation of ReGenesis Organizational
fertilizer plant sites and its	structure
current commitment as an 	
Do Not Cite or Quote.
93
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Although the Partnership continues to expand its organizational capacity, and has
recently	more
thoroughly defined its
organizational
structure,	the
Partnership is best
explained as consisting
of a broad collection of
individual connections
between ReGenesis
and	various
organizations.
ReGenesis	has
tirelessly persuaded
new partners to
become involved in the
redevelopment effort.
As of September 2001,
a partnership summary
indicated 76 partners
that	currently
contribute, or intend to
contribute, to the
redevelopment efforts.
Partnership Goals
Figure 2. EPA Estimate of Partners in ReGenesis Partnership
Number of Partners by Organizational Type
in ReGenesis Partnership

^Grai „
9'b"aM9s„.,

em/a

f'c9l F? r' Vste s
Repr^Jec,°r
The overall vision of the ReGenesis project is to clean up and revitalize the Arkwright
and Forest Park areas through the use of collaborative partnerships in order to transform the
community "into a nice place to live."47 To achieve this vision, ReGenesis partners have
identified seven project goals. These include: (1) creating a comprehensive redevelopment
plan; (2) cleaning up contaminated sites; (3) providing for public safety, education, and life skills;
(4) ensuring public health; (5) improving transportation access; (6) creating green space and
greenway trails; and (7) developing affordable and energy efficient housing.48 In addition to
outlining the project elements, the project partners have identified five project approaches that
should be used (or adhered to) in pursuit of the project goals. These include: (1) collaborative
partnerships; (2) environmental justice; (3) community revitalization; (4) community
empowerment and participation; and (5) local problem-solving.49
Project Activities
The ReGenesis partnership is still in the early to middle stages in terms of meeting
project goals and few major partnership activities have been implemented. The recognition that
the Partnership has more work to be done is reflected in the fact that relatively few tangible
effects from the cleanup and revitalization efforts can be seen. Apart from the deconstruction of
the fertilizer plant, the community is still waiting for EPA to make final determinations on the
cleanup of the Arkwright Dump and fertilizer sites before cleanup and revitalization activities can
begin.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
94
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Although most activities have not begun, the Partnership has been heavily engaged in
laying the necessary groundwork to ensure planned activities will take place, which, in addition
to the cleanup of the contaminated sites, include the building of a job training center, a
technology center, and a public health clinic; the development of a parkway more easily linking
the neighborhoods to the greater Spartanburg community; the construction of a series of
greenspaces and greenway trails; and the development of affordable, energy efficient housing.
To ensure these activities will take place, the partnership members have been working to
secure funding and additional partners.
Since 2000 the Partnership has secured over $1.1 million through grants. The primary
sources of funding include: Senate Appropriations initiated by Senator Ernest Hollings (SC-D)
issued through HUD Neighborhood Improvement Grants; EPA Superfund, Brownfields, and
Environmental Justice grants; and a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) health
center grant. The City and Vigindustries have also made monetary contributions. The
Partnership has also identified over ten additional potential funding sources for cleanup and
revitalization activities. In addition to securing funding through grants, several persons are
contributing varying portions of their staff time or volunteering to support the project. EPA's
southeast regional branch alone has over eight people involved in various aspects of the
Partnership.
Another key partnership activity underway since May 2001 has been periodic meetings
hosted by the City to identify which parties, in addition to the City, may have significantly
contributed waste to the Arkwright Dump. One of the first of its kind, this collaborative effort,
following EPA draft policy guidance, involves regular conference calls50 and interviews with
community members to determine the history of the site and better identify all possible waste
contributors. One interviewee commented that although community input to identify potentially
responsible parties is typically not significant, the Arkwright and Forest Park community has
provided an uncharacteristically large amount of helpful information. Finding additional
responsible parties that can help finance the cleanup will be critical since the Dump cleanup
costs are expected to be more than the City can pay.
The following sections primarily describe interviewees' responses to questions gathered
from interviews conducted by EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation primarily
during the week of October 1, 2001. The sections focus on interviewees' impressions regarding
measuring partnership success, partnership success and challenges, recommendations for
improving the Partnership, overall value of the Partnership, and the value of federal involvement
in the Partnership.
Measuring Success
The ReGenesis Partnership has not developed a framework to measure if and how well
their activities are being implemented, or if their activities are a success. Some measures of
success are, however, being built into discreet project components such as the health care
clinic work plan, the Brownfields assessment work plan, and the Arkwright Dump Superfund
Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) work plan. A sample of measures of success from the SRI work
plan51 is included below.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
95	Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Figure 3. Sample of Measures of Success for Arkwright Dump Redevelopment Initiative
Goal: Coordinated efforts between US EPA, the County, the City, the Community and other stakeholders
Objective Create Newsletter and website to
INFORM ALL STAKEHOLDERS
Objective Meetings with residents and
STAKEHOLDERS
Objective Identify stakeholders
Objective Coordinate communication between
ALL STAKEHODERS INVOLVED
Measure: Number of hits on the website, Number
OF NEWSLETTERS DISTRIBUTED
Measure : input from community meetings;
TRACKING PARTICIPATION AT THE PUBLIC FORUMS;
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON THE VARIOUS
committees; and number of inquries about the
PROJECT
Measure: survey results for stakeholders' needs
AND CONCERNS OF THE PROJECT
Measure: evaluation surveys; Preparation of A
TABLE OF ONGOING INITIATIVES, THE RECIPIENT OR ENTITY
RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THE FUNDS, AND KEY
CONTACTS
Several interviewees indicated that overall success would be measured in tangible terms such
as contaminated site cleanup and clinic construction. Another interviewee indicated that some
measures have been developed, but that they were dependent upon the cleanup of the
contaminated sites. One interviewee indicated that no overarching measures had been
developed, but such an effort would be valuable. Another endorsed the need to establish
timelines for each of the project goals.
Partnership Successes
Most interviewees expressed satisfaction with the direction of the Partnership, their
ability to participate in it, and indicated that their interests were being met. Regarding the
success of project activities, most indicated that it was too early to determine the success of
Partnership activities since most were still planned for the future. However, interviewees
expressed strong support for the actions that have been undertaken so far and felt strongly that
the future actions will have the desired effect. Two interviewees remarked that one direct
outcome of all the activities performed up to this point has been the bringing of real inspiration
and excitement to a group of people that previously had very little about the prospects in their
community.
In terms of greatest overall success, most interviewees indicated that the development
of the Partnership itself has been the greatest success. According to interviewees, the
Partnership has brought former adversaries together. One interviewee explained that with the
Partnership different groups now had a common cause and were emotionally united. Another
explained that simply getting people together in the same room to work together on issues has
been very important. Asking for the reason behind the Partnership success, most indicated
Harold Mitchell and ReGenesis first. The work of ReGenesis has enabled an atmosphere that
is conducive to partnering. As one interviewee noted, ReGenesis "extended the olive branch."
ReGenesis wanted "everyone to be involved and everyone to benefit." ReGenesis was
"interested in harmony instead of friction." Other reasons given for the for the Partnership's
formation include the leadership roles of the Mayor and the County and the Interagency
Working Group's urging of the various groups to come up with their own solutions to the
challenges facing the Arkwright and Forest Park.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
96
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Another major success, not entirely separate from the development of the Partnership,
has been the securing of funding. Although some interviewees identified successful fundraising
for discreet project initiatives, such as the funding of the health clinic, others indicated that they
were pleased so far with the overall ability of the Partnership to secure funding and resources.
Interviewees did not directly address why the securing of funds has been so successful,
however, it is likely that most would attribute this success to focused Partnership leadership and
enthusiastic support for the Partnership from a variety of different organizations.
In addition, interviewees cited the Partnership's commitment to community involvement
as an important success. Of the thirteen persons who addressed this issue, twelve highlighted
the efforts being made to involve the Arkwright and Forest Park neighborhoods in almost every
aspect of the project. The key reason for the high rate of community involvement is ReGenesis,
through which community members can have their concerns fed directly into the Partnership.
The only challenge faced by ReGenesis, suggests one interviewee, has been the organization's
difficulty in continually translating large amounts of technical information to the community on a
regular basis.
Partnership Challenges
Interviewees voiced several challenges facing the Partnership but no clear consensus
emerged from the responses. Five interviews cited communication/organizational issues as an
impediment to success, noting that the numerous players and the many discrete components of
the project make it difficult to understand what the overall project goals are, what the roles of
each of the partners will be, and/or what activities are planned for the future. For instance, one
interviewee voiced a strong desire to contribute significantly, but has so far only participated on
a limited basis because of lack of guidance from the Partnership on how best to participate.
Similarly, two interviewees remarked that a lack of a single point person for the project inhibits
success. Currently, Harold Mitchell is the overall leader of the project, however, neither Harold
nor anyone else participating in the Partnership has the time or resources necessary to devote
full attention to project coordination and management. Despite these concerns, it is important to
note that within days before these interviews were conducted, the Partnership steering
committee had distributed an information packet describing in detail the project elements, the
actual and potential resources dedicated to the project, and designated lead partners for
implementing each project element in preparation for an upcoming full partner meeting. It is
conceivable that this, in combination with the full partner meeting, served to clarify project goals
and elements along with partner roles and responsibilities.
A second challenge centered on industry/community tensions. Specifically, three
interviewees identified the conflicting viewpoints between ReGenesis and Rhodia as barriers to
success. To overcome this tension, one interviewee recommended that Rhodia and ReGenesis
continue their on-going dialogue. The interviewee also recommended that Rhodia work to
develop a better relationship with the nearby community. Two of these same interviewees also
identified the ReGenesis lawsuit against IMC as a potential barrier to success. Another
interviewee noted more generally that conflicting interests between the affected community and
industry might inhibit partnership success.
A third challenge focused on partnership sustainability. Because of the complexity of the
project and the length required to address the various issues, four interviewees indicated that
efforts to sustain momentum and support would be key. Expressing frustration, one interviewee
remarked that even finalizing a voluntary agreement between the City and EPA regarding the
Arkwright Dump took several months. In order to sustain the enthusiasm for the Partnership,
Do Not Cite or Quote.
97
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
one interviewee noted that new parties must be continually courted and regularly involved, such
as business leaders, over the next few years.
Another challenge centered on issues of funding. Four interviewees cited the difficulty
the Partnership may face in ensuring adequate funding for partnership activities, even though
over a million dollars in grants has been secured so far. This is not surprising, however, since
the cleanup projects will undoubtedly prove to be very expensive. No suggestions were
provided on how to overcome this obstacle.
Other barriers to success cited by interviewees include obtaining the full support of the
City and the County for the cleanup and revitalization effort; bringing all the partners together in
a timely manner; persuading companies to take responsibility for their roles in the Arkwright
Dump site; fully engaging the business community as a partner; changing the mindset of the
community so it views itself as a driver of the revitalization process instead of simply another
participant within the Partnership; ensuring that the contaminated sites are cleaned up;
understanding what constitutes success for the affected community; and completing a detailed
comprehensive plan for the revitalization effort. The comprehensive plan, which is being
developed out of funds from a Brownfields assessment grant provided by EPA, is currently in its
formative stages.
Interviewees were also asked whether the organizational styles and procedures of the
different partner organizations limited effective collaboration between partners. Of the twelve
who addressed this topic, seven indicated that the different organizational styles have not been
barriers. One explained that the great number and diversity of partners is actually a strength of
the Partnership. Two interviewees remarked that even when differences emerge between
partners, solutions are sought in a cooperative manner. Another remarked, however, that even
though organizational differences limiting the effectiveness of the Partnership were not
apparent, some organizations were not performing as capably as they could be. Five
interviewees highlighted organizational differences that have contributed to partnership
difficulties. One explained that differing organizational requirements within a government
agency had hindered the interviewee's ability to complete a project grant proposal in a timely
manner. An agency interviewee remarked that federal agency travel restrictions limit some
federal agencies from participating as effectively as they could. This same interviewee also
noted federal agencies often don't participate more constructively because it is not always clear
how their participation will directly relate to each agencies' mission. A second agency
interviewee indicated that, in certain circumstances, certain ethics rules might limit agencies'
abilities to participate as effective partners. The interviewee cited a recent example where the
partner agency had been asked to send a letter to another ReGenesis partner agency
endorsing a distinct component of the Partnership. The agency's ethics attorney explained that
it was inappropriate for either the agency or agency personnel to endorse a company or entity.
However, after consultation with the agency's ethics attorney, the agency revised the letter from
one of support for the Partnership component, to one expressing the agency's interest towards
supporting the goals of the Partnership that will partly be met by the implementation of the
Partnership component.
Interviewees' Recommendations for improving the Partnership
Interviewee recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the ReGenesis
Partnership fell into three rough sets of recommendations. The first set centered on the need
for training. Three interviewees highlighted areas where the Partnership could benefit from
training. Each, however, recommended different types of training. One suggested that more
general environmental justice (EJ) and community involvement training be made available for
Do Not Cite or Quote.
98
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
partners. A second interviewee suggested that partners should participate in leadership training
in order to better ensure that partner commitments are kept. A third recommended that partners
participate in training on professional collaborative management. Related to issues of
leadership and professional collaborative management, a second set of recommendations
focused on better establishing timelines and commitments. One felt strongly that timelines
should be produced for the main goals and that partners should then be kept accountable.
Similarly, a second interviewee indicated that more work needed to be done to secure stronger
commitments from partners. A third suggested that additional work was needed at the close of
each partner meeting to ensure important points were captured and clarified for all partners to
see, possibly being made available in a newsletter. A third set of recommendations focused on
ensuring that ReGenesis' chairman, Harold Mitchell, was made executive director of the
Partnership and given the resources necessary, such as an office, to perform all necessary
functions associated with the position. Other recommendations included ensuring that one
objective party be put in place to guide the Partnership, making more information available
about the community, increasing communication between different federal agencies, obtaining
quicker responses from federal agencies, keeping an open mind, and respecting differences in
perspectives.
Interviewees' Recommendations for Other Communities Using Partnerships
Thirteen interviewees offered suggestions for other communities interested in using
collaborative partnerships to address EJ issues. Most felt that a well-planned partnership was
essential. To achieve this interviewees recommended the following activities: make a list of all
possible partners from the federal to local levels, learn about their interests, and then identify
how their interests overlap and can benefit the partnership; bring partners into the process early;
establish a solid vision; ask partners what you want your community to look like in ten years;
obtain consensus on the goals and objectives; categorize and prioritize goals and objectives;
and secure buy-in from high level stakeholders. Three interviewees also placed emphasis on
the need for the community to speak with one voice. One even went as far as suggesting that
action be taken to better encourage and support grassroots leaders to emerge from affected
communities. Two interviewees also emphasized the need for communities to obtain education
on EJ issues at the start of the partnering process. They added that that it is important for
partners to understand how the affected community perceives environmental injustice. Along
with EJ training, one of the same interviewees recommended that underlying issues of race and
history be openly explored before taking actions to address the immediate concerns. Finally,
one interviewee suggested that communities identify a federal contact when starting a
partnership, and another suggested reviewing other partnership success stories.
Value of Collaborative Partnership
When asked directly the value of addressing issues through a collaborative partnership
approach, interviewees came up with a variety of responses. One interviewee indicated that
partnering results in quicker decisions. Another indicated that partnering, or acting like a team
in the words of the interviewee, gives all interested parties a chance to provide their input and
feel positive about their contributions. Related to the team concept, one interviewee stated that
the partnership process has resulted in more people becoming aware of each other, and
another stated that the process enables partners to see the "connectivity across issues" since
each get to share their views. Also related to the team concept, one interviewee noted that in a
partnership, partners act as "lifelines" to each other through their willingness to share expertise.
Two interviewees noted that partnerships aid in the leveraging of resources. Particularly, one
noted that once different groups show a willingness to work together, others are more likely to
join in and participate. Finally, one agency interviewee noted that the Partnership has made it
Do Not Cite or Quote.
99
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
easier to encourage other agency colleagues working in Spartanburg to engage in additional
community involvement efforts.
When asked whether the collaborative process could be used to address other issues
that the Arkwright and Forest Park community is facing, thirteen of thirteen partners addressing
this topic responded affirmatively. In addition, most indicated that this approach could be used
in many other communities to address a variety of issues. One interviewee remarked that this
model would be very useful to begin applying in other communities facing Brownfields
redevelopment issues. Another mentioned that this model could certainly be used to address
future EJ issues facing other communities, and added that local leaders could be persuaded to
buy into a process like this every time. One interviewee cautioned, however, that despite the
seeming success of the partnership approach in Spartanburg, advocates should not rely on a
single "cookie-cutter" approach when pulling partnerships together.
When asked whether the main issues affecting the Arkwright and Forest Park
community would have been addressed without a collaborative approach, of the twelve that
addressed this question, two indicated that the issues would have been addressed but the
process would have taken much longer. For example, one stated that the issues would have
been addressed in a "very piecemeal and unorganized fashion." Another was less confident,
stating that the issues may have been addressed, but less successfully. Five interviewees felt
that only some of the issues would have been addressed without a partnership approach. For
instance, two stated that while the contaminated sites may have been cleaned up, the effort to
plan the redevelopment of the Brownfields would not have been initiated. The remaining five
indicated that the issues would not have been addressed. For example, one interviewee
suggested that the competing interests between different parties could not have been resolved.
Another remarked that the parties would have ended up arguing the issues in court.
Value of Federal Involvement in Partnership
When asked about the effect of having federal agencies participate in the ReGenesis
Partnership, responses covered two broad categories: resources and credibility. Five
interviewees remarked that the greatest effect of federal involvement has been the resources
the federal agencies bring to the table. Specifically these resources, as indicated by the
interviewees, include money, technical assistance, and expertise. One interviewee stated that
without the federal technical expertise and dollars, the Partnership would not have emerged.
Additionally, another type of resource that federal partners bring is a knowledge of resources
that other federal agencies may have available. One interviewee stated that enabling the
community to identify the broad range of resources available at the federal level covering
everything from transportation to issues of public health is a key part of a holistic approach to
revitalization. Regarding issues of credibility, three interviewees specifically indicated that
federal involvement has elevated the level of trust and credibility surrounding the project. Along
these lines, another explained that having federal partners has helped the Partnership earn the
trust of banks in the area. Additionally, the interviewee noted that having federal partners
involved helps to better ensure that money allocated for partnership activities does not get
misspent. Also related, but more intangible, one interviewee noted that having federal partners
involved helps provide a national presence and a direct connection with Washington, D.C.
Finally, one interviewee noted that having the federal partners involved "has been one of those
uplifting, empowering things for the community."
When asked what federal partners have gained by participating in the ReGenesis
Partnership, most interviewees indicated that they gained a better knowledge of the community.
Specifically, they learned about specific threats that the community faced, such as the Arkwright
Do Not Cite or Quote.
100
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Dump. In addition, federal partners have learned more about how to effectively work with
communities and design policies that better meet the needs of local people. For instance, one
interviewee remarked that involvement in Spartanburg has helped the interviewee's agency
better appreciate that the source of true collaborative problem solving is at the local level. In
addition, interviewees noted that federal partners have learned more about issues of
environmental justice and how to address them. One agency representative noted that before
becoming involved in this project, the interviewee did not fully appreciate the disparities facing
minority communities. In fact, before getting involved in the project, the interviewee typically
assumed that communities would look to federal agencies if they had problems. But
involvement in this community project enabled the interviewee to more fully appreciate how
some communities have lost full trust in the government to assist them. Other interviewees
noted that involvement in the ReGenesis project has helped federal partners gain the good will
of the community, learn how to think innovatively, and better appreciate that communities with
significant environmental problems may still be unidentified.
When asked whether Federal agencies have been able to better coordinate their
activities as a result of their involvement in the ReGenesis Partnership, most found it difficult to
answer, especially since EPA has been the federal agency most visible in Spartanburg.
Although three out of the eight interviewees who addressed this issue felt that EPA was doing a
good job in its coordination both with the City and the community, most interviewees were
unclear whether better federal coordination across different federal agencies has occurred. One
interviewee explained that towards the beginning of the Partnership, several agencies indicated
they had resources to contribute; however, since that time it has appeared that many of these
same federal agencies have disengaged. This observation was also echoed by another
interviewee's statement. Finally, one interviewee felt that having federal partners involved has
resulted in better coordination, mainly through improved understanding of the different agencies
resources, but that agencies still have a lot to learn in this area.
Interviewees were also asked what federal agencies could do to be more effective
partners in local collaborative efforts. The first set of recommendations centered on how
agencies should interact with communities. These included getting involved early on in the
partnership, meeting with the affected community at the ground level, genuinely listening to
community concerns, and ensuring that agency representatives possess sufficient maturity,
skill, and community involvement experience to participate effectively. One interviewee
remarked that it requires significant effort to undo damage resulting from actions taken, or
comments made, by agency representatives inexperienced in community work.
Another set of recommendations focused on how agencies promote and make their
resources available. Two interviewees suggested that federal agencies should do a better job
of disseminating information about applying for funding. Another suggested that agencies
should make community focused resources more user-friendly. Citing the former Livable
Communities initiative as a model, this interviewee added that this could be done in a number of
ways, including asking each agency to support one person in each region and state who could
effectively talk about available resources with communities. These persons should then be
listed in a directory, similar to what the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
(IWG) currently makes available describing federal contacts. Other suggestions regarding this
topic included making one agency serve as a lead agency for directing interested communities
to resources available at other agencies, and requiring that each agency involved in a
partnership use only one person to work directly with the community. One local interviewee
explained that it was intimidating to try and understand the different work EPA was trying to do
in Spartanburg. The interviewee further explained that with three-four different points of contact
at EPA, it made it that much more difficult to understand all the actions being undertaken.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
101
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Echoing this sentiment, an agency interviewee explained that EPA was working to ensure better
internal coordination at EPA of all those that were working directly on the Spartanburg issues.
To accomplish this, an internal work group has been functioning since the summer of 2001.
The work group has even developed a set of principles to better guide the work of the group.
Other recommendations to improve how federal agencies work in partnerships include sharing
the stories of these efforts around EPA more regularly, continuing the IWG, working to learn
more about the different resources that each agency has available, and requiring that more than
one federal agency be involved local partnerships in order to develop a fuller picture of
resources that are available.
Key Findings
¦	Partners are generally satisfied with the current state of the Partnership and their ability
to participate in it. They are satisfied that their interests are being met and are optimistic
about its future activities.
¦	Participants would appreciate greater information on project goals, objectives, timelines,
measures of success, roles, and action items from meetings. This would enable
partners to feel confident about their role within the Partnership and how they can best
apply resources to support it.
¦	Partners are very satisfied with the level of community involvement in the Partnership.
ReGenesis has been effective at keeping the Arkwright and Forest Park community well
informed about the actions of the Partnership. In addition, ReGenesis ensures that input
from the community will be heard and used to help define and refine the overall
partnership vision and direct activities necessary to implement that vision.
¦	Federal involvement played a significant role in helping the Partnership emerge.
Specifically, federal partners have provided integral resources and technical assistance.
In addition, by directly participating, federal partners have boosted the credibility of the
Partnership effort and raised expectations of the Arkwright and Forest Park community
that the overall partnership goals will be met.
¦	Local participation by the City and County has also been critical to the Partnership.
However, some partners feel that additional support from the City and County is still
needed in order for the partnership activities to be fully implemented.
¦	Much of the Partnership's concern regarding future activities centers on the investigation
and cleanup of the contaminated sites and the development of the brownfields
comprehensive plan. EPA has not yet made final decisions regarding the cleanups of
the Arkwright Dump and fertilizer plant sites. Although expectations are that cleanup
issues will be resolved, several activities must be put on hold until key decisions
regarding the sites are made. Another key component is the development of a
comprehensive plan for the area. This plan will help better define the overall vision of
the Partnership, but until a final plan can be completed and agreed to, few revitalization
efforts can proceed.
¦	Unresolved disputes, between ReGenesis and Rhodia, and between ReGenesis and
IMC, could adversely impact the effectiveness of the Partnership in the future. However,
few partners believe that these disputes will significantly detract from the Partnership
achieving its overall cleanup and revitalization goals.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
102
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Afterword
After interviewees had the opportunity to review the first draft of this case study, a
member of the ReGenesis Partnership's steering committee submitted an update regarding
activities of the Partnership since March 2002. These are summarized briefly below. First, over
100 partners are now involved in the ReGenesis Partnership effort. Second, the ReGenesis
Partnership has been awarded a $330,000 New Start Health Center grant from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; a $230,000 Ford Foundation grant; and a $1.2M
U.S. Senate appropriation for transportation development (U.S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings).
Third, the Partnership is waiting to hear whether it has been awarded a $250,000 Weed and
Seed grant from the U.S. Department of Justice and a Community Development Block grant
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the City, and County of
Spartanburg. Finally, in June 2002, Mr. Mitchell was awarded EPA's National "Citizens
Excellence in Community Involvement Award."52
Do Not Cite or Quote.
103	Draft: 9.4.02

-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
104
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
List of Interviewees
Barrio Logan Partnership
Don Ames-
Norma Chavez
Susana Concha-Garcia-
Paula Forbis
Clarice Gaylord
Steven Gold
James Justus
Jerry Martin-
Lane McVey
David Merk
Lewis Michaelson
Frank Riley
Sonia Rodriquez-
Charles "Muggs" Stoll
California Air Resources Board
Metropolitan Area Advisory Council on Anti-Poverty Project
American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial Counties
Environmental Health Coalition
formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Diego Attorney's Office
Inner City Business Association
California Air Resources Board
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
Unified Port District
Katz and Associates
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Mercado Tenants Association
California Department of Transportation
Bridges to Friendship Partnership
Richard Allen
Uwe Brandes
Brian Christopher
Gentry Davis-
Camille Destafny
Judith Dobbins-
Christine Hart-Wright
Linda Jackson
David Ouderkirk
Randy Parker-
Reginald Parrish
Mike Shannon-
Maxine Snowden-
Mike Wallach
Babette Williams-
Admiral Christopher Weaver
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
District of Columbia
Alice Hamilton Occupational Health Center
U.S. National Park Service
U.S. Navy
Covenant House D.C.
Strive DC, Inc.
Building Bridges Across the River
U.S. Navy
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Covenant House D.C.
U.S. National Park Service
Anacostia Economic Development Corporation
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Navy
Metlakatla Peninsula
Jeff Benson-
Garth Beyette
Robert Deering-
Frank Esposito-
Jere Hayslett
Robert Johnson
Cliff Mahooty
Felicia Wright
Len Richeson
Callie Ridolfi-
Cleanup Partnership
Metlakatla Indian Community
Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Defense
Ridolfi Engineers
-Denotes that individual participated in a group interview.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
105
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Metro East Lead
Chris Anderson
Tony Camillo
Noemi Emeric
Dave Eustis
Blair Forlaw
Tom Miller
Rebecca Perkins
Deb Roush
Joan Scharf
Lue Walters
Collaborative
East St. Louis Community Development Block Grant Operation
St. Mary's Hospital
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Southwestern Illinois Resource Conservation and Development
East-West Gateway Coordinating Council
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Neighbors United for Progress
Army Corps of Engineers
St. Clair County Intergovernmental Grants Department
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
New Madrid Partnership
Walter Bone-
Victor Blackburn-
Mary Evans-
Gwen Farr
Darvin Green
Adrienne Hunter-Wells-
Laura McKeever-
Rose Minner
Althea Moses
Willie Pittman-
Fred Reeves
Ervin Schaedler-
Louise Typler
ReGenesis Partnership
Doug Bracket
George Fletcher-
John Funderburk
Mike Garret
Dr. David Goolsby
Brian Holtzclaw
Ralph Howard
Kelly Long
Harold Mitchell
Cynthia Peurifoy
Lewis Pilgrim
Robert Reed-
Elena Rush
James Talley-
Jim Trafton
Brad Wyche-
Great Rivers Alliance Natural Resource Districts
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
Community Facilitator
Community Health Team
Lincoln University Cooperative, Community Development Corp.
Community Coordinator
Great Rivers Alliance Natural Resource Districts
Community Facilitator/Community Team Member
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
Great Rivers Alliance Natural Resource Districts
Headstart
Spartanburg Technical College
Fletcher Consulting
Upstate Assistant for U.S. Senator E.F. Hollings
City of Spartanburg
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of U.S. Congressman Jim DeMint
ReGenesis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Arkwright Neighborhood Association
Councilman for City of Spartanburg
Spartanburg County
formerly Mayor of City of Spartanburg
Rhodia, Inc.
UpState Forever
-Denotes that individual participated in a group interview.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
106
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Copy of Interview Guide
Evaluating the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model
Interview Guide
Background
The Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG) made the development of a
collaborative problem-solving model a priority last year by promoting fifteen environmental
justice demonstration projects. To better assess the value of the collaborative model and
capture lessons learned to benefit future partnerships, the IWG committed to the development
of an evaluation methodology.
To assist the IWG in carrying out this important task, the EPA Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation's Evaluation Support Division is preparing case studies of selected demonstration
projects. These case studies seek to identify lessons learned in a number of important areas to
gain a better understanding of this emerging collaborative model. The 	
project/partnership/collaborative has been selected to be a candidate for the case study effort.
To gather the information needed to develop the case studies and assess the overall value of
the collaborative model, the Evaluation Team has created a series of interview questions to
discuss with stakeholders participating in the	project/partnership/collaborative.
Your responses to these questions will provide lessons that the Evaluation Team can use to
better understand:
¦	key factors contributing to project success and challenges;
¦	the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships to address
environmental justice issues; and
¦	the effectiveness of Federal agency involvement in these projects.
The guide includes standard questions we plan to draw from in our interviews with partners from
each of the participating projects. We may also ask a limited set of additional questions that are
more specific to your project. The interview will take approximately 60-90 minutes.
Your responses to these questions will be used solely by the Evaluation Team to develop the
evaluation/case study report. Your name or organization will not be directly associated with any
quotations used or narrative developed unless you specifically grant permission. Our notes
from your interview can only be made available to outside parties through a Freedom of
Information Act request; however, formal requests for interview notes are very rare.
We appreciate your assistance in this effort, and look forward to speaking with you.
1. General Background
a.	Briefly describe the main issues facing the affected community that brought the
	project/partnership/collaborative together?
b.	How long have you been a part of the	project/partnership/collaborative?
c.	Why did you decide to join the	project/partnership/collaborative? What is your
role with the project/partnership/collaborative? (e.g., facilitator, project coordinator, participant)
Do Not Cite or Quote.
107
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
d. Briefly describe how the	project/partnership/collaborative came about.
-When was the project/partnership/collaborative started?
-What stage of development is the project/partnership/collaborative in now? (e.g., early,
middle, or late stages)
2.	Background on Collaborative Process
a.	Please describe generally how the	project/partnership/collaborative works?
-How often do you and your project/partnership/collaborative partners meet?
-How do you make decisions as a group?
-How were you and others asked to participate?
-How does the group address difficult issues that arise between members?
b.	Have the organizational styles and procedures of the different organizations limited
effective collaboration between partners? How do you and your partners break down
organizational barriers?
c.	How does the	project/partnership/collaborative allow for meaningful
community involvement? (e.g., are meetings open to the public, are meeting's structured so that
community participants can effectively participate, are technical issues clearly explained) How
has input from the affected community been used in prioritizing action plans during the planning
process?
d.	To what extent has the	project/partnership/collaborative resulted in greater
collaboration with Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments and organizations?
3.	Satisfaction with Collaborative Process
a.	Have you and your organization been satisfied with your ability to participate in the
project decision-making process? Please explain.
b.	Are the issues most important to you and your organization being adequately addressed
by the	project/partnership/collaborative? Why or why not?
4.	Project Activities and Results
a.	What are the main activities the	project/partnership/collaborative has
undertaken so far? (e.g., air quality monitoring, brownfields redevelopment, community visioning
workshops, etc.)
b.	To what extent has the organization you represent been able to dedicate resources to
help implement these activities? (e.g., volunteer time/expertise, staff time/expertise, $, technical
assistance)
c.	What impacts have these activities had at addressing the main issues facing the affected
community?
d.	Are you satisfied with the outcomes of these activities so far? Please explain.
5.	Project Successes and Challenges
Do Not Cite or Quote.
108
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
a. How does the
of these activities?
project/partnership/collaborative plan to measure the success
b.	What has been the greatest success of the	project/partnership/collaborative so
far? What have been the main reasons for this success?
c.	What has been the biggest challenge of the	project/partnership/collaborative
so far?
-What have been the main reasons for this challenge?
-Has your group been able to overcome this challenge? How?
6.	Value of Collaborative Process to Affected Community
a.	What has been the overall value of using a collaborative process to address the main
issues facing the affected community?
b.	Do you feel that the collaborative process used in the	
project/partnership/collaborative can address similar issues that the affected community may
face in the future? Please explain.
c.	How would the main issues facing the affected community have been addressed if the
	project/partnership/collaborative had not been formed?
d.	What would you recommend to improve how the	
project/partnership/collaborative works in the future?
e.	What additional lessons can you share with other communities interested in using a
collaborative process?
7.	Value of Federal Involvement
a.	Have participating Federal agencies identified conflicting requirements in their statutes
or regulations that have been barriers to the success of the	
project/partnership/collaborative?
b.	What has been the effect of having Federal partners participate in the	project/
partnership/collaborative for the affected community?
c.	What do you think the Federal agencies have gained by participating in the	
project/ partnership/collaborative?
d.	Have participating Federal agencies been better able to coordinate their activities as a
result of the	project/partnership/collaborative?
e.	What would you recommend so that Federal agencies best tailor their roles to participate in
collaborative processes?
Do Not Cite or Quote.
109
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
110
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Works Cited
Introduction
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, Environmental Justice Collaborative
Model: A Framework to Ensure Local Problem-Solving, Status Report, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Justice, EPA 300-R-02-001,
February 2002.
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, Integrated Federal Interagency
Environmental Justice Action Agenda, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Justice,	EPA/300-R-00-008, November 2000.
.
International City/County Management Association, Report: Forum on Building Collaborative
Models to Achieve Environmental Justice - May 17 & 18 2001, Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Lee, Charles, Associate Director for Policy and Interagency Liaison, Office of Environmental Justice. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Electronic Communication, 2 April 2002.
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, "June 25, 2002 Letter to EPA Administrator," in
Integration of Environmental Justice in Federal Agency Programs: A Report developed
from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Meeting of December 11-14,
2000. May 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Federal Register Notice on Environmental Justice
Revitalization Projects sponsored by the Federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice," 24 April 2002.
.
Barrio Logan Partnership
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. Electronic Communication. July
17, 2002.
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, Presentation by Barrio Logan
Partnership, Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental Justice
hosted by the International City/County Management Association. Bethesda, Maryland.
17-18 May 2001.
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Revised Draft Partnering
Agreement for the Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project,"
Distributed at the Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental
Justice hosted by the International City/County Management Association. Bethesda,
Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.
City of San Diego, "A Strategy for Updating the City's General Plan," General Plan, City of
Villages. 2002.
.
Do Not Cite or Quote.	111	Draft: 9.4.02

-------
City of San Diego, Barrio Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team, "Barrio Logan revitalization
action plan," September 1996.
City of San Diego; City Manager's Office, "San Diego Recognized as Most Efficiently Run City in
California," 4 March 2002. .
Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates, "Executive
Summary," Barrio Educational Cultural Activities Complex Feasibility Study - Phase 1.
February 1984.
City of San Diego; Mayor's Office, "Dick Murphy's 10 Goals," 2002.
.
Concha-Garcia, Susanna, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San
Diego & Imperial Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.
Delgado, Kevin, "A Turning Point: The Conception and Realization of Chicano Park," The
Journal of San Diego History. Winter 1998, Volume 44, Number 1.
.
Forbis, Paula, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 17 July 2002.
Pacific Institute, Lisa Owens-Viani and Arlene K. Wong, "Brownfields in Barrio Logan: New
Word for an Old Idea," in Brownfields Redevelopment: Meeting the Challenge of
Community Participation. May 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau, "Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino-San Diego city, California,"
Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 17 April 2002.
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Health Coalition, Letter to
potential partners for the Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project.
San Diego, California. 9 January 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Barrio Logan progress report for the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice," Interagency Environmental Justice
Demonstration Projects: An Interim Report. December 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Fact Sheet: Integrated Federal Interagency
Environmental Justice Action Agenda," November 2000. .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 9, "Fact Sheet: Barrio Logan Environmental
Justice Project," 13 November 2000.
Bridges to Friendship Partnership
Bridges to Friendship Partnership, "Columbia Rising: A Series of Community Dialogues
Approach," 7 May 2001.
Bridges to Friendship Partnership, "Vision, Mission, and Statement of Purpose," Memorandum.
4 June 2001.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
112
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Fountain, W.J., "Ward 8 In Profile: After Long Slide, Hope Peeks From Ruin,"
Washingtonpost.com. 28 May 1998.
Global Environment & Technology Foundation, "Bridges to Friendship Overview," Bridges to
Friendship. 7 July 1998.
Global Environmental & Technology Foundation, "Community Empowerment Strategic Plan
Outline," Bridges to Friendship. 10 July 1998.
Government of District of Columbia; Office of Planning, "Anacostia Waterfront Initiative,"
Welcome to Washington District of Columbia. 22 May 2002.
.
Halnon, Mary, "Opportunity: Race in Anacostia through the Civil War," Crossing the River; Race,
Geography, and the Federal Government in Anacostia. 21 May 2002.
.
Halnon, Mary, "The Changing Face of Anacostia: Public Housing and Urban Renewal,"
Crossing the river; Race, Geography, and the Federal Government in Anacostia. 21 May
2002. .
Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, Inc., "History of Southwest DC," 14 May 2002.
.
U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, "HUD Helps Create Jobs and Revitalize
SE Washington To Help President's DC Economic Development Plan Succeed," 12
March 1997.
.
Washington, DC: A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary, "Washington's
Neighborhoods." 21 May 2002. .
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership
Alaska Department of Community & Economic Development, "Metlakatla. Alaska Community
Information Summary," Certified December 2001.
.
Beyette, Garth, Federal Aviation Administration - Alaskan Region, Project Manager, Electronic
Communication. 9 July 2002.
Booth, William, "In Alaska, Logging Ban and Local Hopes Collide," The Washington Post. 15
August 2001.
Congressional Declaration, 48 U.S.C. 358, 3 March 1891.
Federal Aviation Administration - Alaska Region, " Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-
2006," Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects Annette
Island Alaska. April 2001.
Federal Aviation Administration - Alaskan Region, "Annette Island. Proposed 2002 Program.
Operation Clean Sweep, Phase 1 and Phase 2," December 2001.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
113
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Federal Aviation Administration, "Annette Island Environmental Restoration Issues,"
Anchorage, Alaska. August 1997.
. document 19.
Hosmer, Brian C., American Indians in the Marketplace: Persistence and Innovation Among the
Menominees and the Metlakatlans: 1870-1920. (Lawrence, Kansas: University of
Kansas Press, 1999).
Metlakatla Indian Community and Environmental Concern, Inc, "Metlakatla Indian Community
Annette Island Reserve Comprehensive Development Plan," 1972.
Metlakatla Indian Community Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Meeting
Summary," 12 September 2000.
Metlakatla Indian Community, "Letter directed to FAA," 24 January 1995. (Included as an
appendix in United States Federal Aviation Administration, "Annette Island
Environmental Restoration Issues," Anchorage, Alaska. August 1997.
. document 19.
Metlakatla Indian Community, "Metlakatla Indian EC Benchmark Summary Report," October
2001. Metlakatla Indian Enterprise Community, EZ/EC Communities. October 2001.
.
Metlakatla Indian Community, "1999 Annual Report Executive Summary," Metlakatla Indian
Enterprise Community, EZ/EC Communities.
.
MOU Intergovernmental Workgroup, "Briefing Paper for the MIC Council." October 2000. p. 2.
. document 50.
Pacific Rim Planners, Inc, "Annette Islands-Coastal Zone Management Program. Public
Hearing Draft Report," Prepared for the Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle,
Washington. June 1979. .
Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc.,"Master Plan for Environmental Mitigation of the
Metlakatla Peninsula," Prepared for Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle, Washington.
Revised January 1998. . document
22.
Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc, "Preliminary Assessment. Metlakatla Peninsula,"
Prepared for Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle, Washington. 10 October 1996, pp.
7-10. . document 17.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Fact
Sheet, "Brownfields Showcase Community -Metlakatla Indian Community, AK," EPA
500-F-00-228. Washington, D.C. October 2000. .
Metro East Lead Collaborative
Bellville News-Democrat, "On Target to Fix Lead Problem," Belleville News-Democrat. 3
September 2000.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
114
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, "Protecting Children's Health
and Reducing Lead Exposure through Collaborative Partnerships," Federal Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice Demonstration Project.
Getz, Jim, "St. "Five Star Lift," St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 05 July 2001.
Getz, Jim, "Officials Tackle Lead-paint Problems," St. Clair-Monroe Post. 2001.
Hodapp, Mark, "Group Takes Aim at Youth Problems Seeing Potential Fulfilled is goal," St.
Louis Journal. 11 March 2001.
Metro East Lead Collaborative, "Protecting Children's Health & Reducing Lead Exposure
through Collaborative Partnership," Environmental Justice Action Agenda Presentation.
East St. Louis, IL.
Parish, Norma. "Hospital Tests Children for Lead Poisoning in Metro East," St. Louis Post-
Dispatch," September 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Metro East Soil
Sampling Work Update, 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, "Lead Poisoning and Your Children,"
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Protecting Children's Health and Reducing Lead
Exposure through Collaborative Partnerships," Interagency Environmental Justice
Demonstration Projects an Interim Report. December 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Protecting Children's Health and Reducing Lead
Exposure through Collaborative Partnerships," Integrated Federal Interagency
Environmental Justice Action Agenda. Nov 2000.
New Madrid Partnership
Jason, Dr. Emil, "New Madrid County Tri-County Child Health Champion Campaign Project,"
NEJAC Meeting. PowerPoint presentation, December 2000.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc- Embry Howell, Mary Harrington, Elizabeth Langer, Sara
Roschwalb, and Rebecca Kliman, "Interim Report and Evaluation Plan: Child Health
Champion Pilot Program National Evaluation," Submitted to: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Children's Health. 4 August 2000.
. click on full-report.pdf.
"New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign Kick-Off Event," Child
Health Champion publication. January 30, 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "New Madrid progress report for the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice," Interagency Environmental Justice
Demonstration Projects: An Interim Report. December 2000.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
115
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Environmental Justice, "New Madrid County
Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign, Project Summary Sheet," Integrated
Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action Agenda, EPA/300-R-00-008,
November 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, R7, "Demonstration Project Criteria Information,"
Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action Agenda.
ReGenesis Partnership
Administrative Order by Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and Removal, International
Minerals and Chemicals Site, Spartanburg, South Carolina, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Docket No. 01 -3753-C, July 10, 2001.
Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., "Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site:
Spartanburg, South Carolina," Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 4. 23 February 2001.
Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., "DRAFT Community Involvement Plan," International
Minerals and Chemicals Site: Spartanburg, South Carolina. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 18 May 2001.
Community & Economic Development Department; Spartanburg County, Jennifer L. Vissage &
Elena P. Rush, Cooperative Agreement Work Plan Arkwright Superfund Redevelopment
Initiative. 22 August 2001 (Revised 16 November 2001).
Conley, Linda. "Arkwright points an ailing finger at fertilizer plant," Spartanburg Herald-Journal,
2 August 1999.
Conley, Linda. "Arkwright residents take steps to revitalize their community Visions for the
future," Spartanburg Herald Journal. 12 December 1999.
"Discovering Rhodia," Rhodia home page, . 5 December 2001.
Federal Interagency Working Group, "Sustaining Partnerships through Collaborative Action."
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice Brochure. February 2001.
Hamm, Tanya Bordeaux, in cooperation with the Spartanburg Area Chamber of Commerce,
"Spartanburg: International Flavor, Southern Style," Printed in Mexico. 1999. Chapter
Two.
Holtzclaw, Brian. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Electronic Communication,
23 August 2002.
Howard, Jr., Ralph O. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Arkwright Dump
Project Manager, Electronic communication, February 13, 2002.
Norman, Diane. "Lawsuit takes aim at IMC over Arkwright site," Spartanburg Herald Journal.
(Middle Tyger Bureau Editor), 11 April 2001.
"ReGenesis, Inc.: A Community-Based, Community-Driven Grass Roots Environmental Justice
Organization." Informational Piece on ReGenesis, Inc.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
116
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Rhodia Inc. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Achievement
Track. Application Form. 3 August 2000. . 5
December 2001.
TetraTechEM Inc., "Expanded Site Inspection Report for the International Minerals and Chemicals Site:
Spartanburq, South Carolina," (approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency), 16
November 2000,
U.S. Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry. Final Health Assessment for
Arkwright Dump Site. Full cite forthcoming.
U.S. Census Bureau, "Population of Spartanburg city, South Carolina," Census 2000 Summary
File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 27 November 2001.
U.S. Census Bureau, "Population of Spartanburg County, South Carolina." Census 2000
Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 27 November 2001.
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, "Arkwright Dump," Fact Sheet, January 30,
2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, Environmental Justice (EJ) Contributions in
the Waste Management Division (WD), U.S. EPA Region 4 - Southeast. Mid-April To
Mid-June, FY 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, "Fact sheet: IMC Fertilizer Site Update,"
Superfund Program. May 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, "Fact sheet: Site Inspection (SI) Results:
Former IMC Fertilizer Site," Superfund Program. March 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, "Update Fact Sheet No. 2," Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study: Arkwright Dump Site. 25 May 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot: Spartanburg County, SC, EPA 500-F-01-
286. April 2001.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
117
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
118
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Endnotes
Introduction
1
International City/County Management Association. Report: Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve
Environmental Justice - May 17 & 18 2001, Chevy Chase, Maryland, pp.7-10.
2
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice. Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action
Agenda. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Justice. EPA/300-R-00-008. November
2000, p. 5. http://www.epa.aov/compliance/resources/publications/ei/actionaaenda.pdf
3
Ibid., p. 8. Also see Section II.
4	1
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Justice Collaborative Model: A Framework to Ensure Local Problem-Solving, Status Report, EPA 300-R-02-001,
February 2002, p. 5.
5	Ibid., p. 5.
6	Qtd. in ibid., p. iv.
7	1
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, "June 25, 2002 Letter to EPA Administrator," in Integration of Environmental Justice in Federal
Agency Programs: A Report developed from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Meeting of
December 11-14, 2000. May 2002.
8	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Federal Register Notice on Environmental Justice Revitalization Projects
sponsored by the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice," 24 April 2002.
http://www.epa.aov/compliance/resources/publications/ei/iwa frn ei revit proi.pdf.
g
Charles Lee, Associate Director for Policy and Interagency Liaison, Office of Environmental Justice. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Electronic Communication, 2 April 2002.
10 ,, ¦ .
Ibid.
Barrio Logan Partnership
1	U.S. Census Bureau, "Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino-San Diego city, California," Census
2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 17 April 2002.
.
2	City of San Diego; City Manager's Office, "San Diego Recognized as Most Efficiently Run City in
California," 4 March 2002. .
3City of San Diego; Mayor's Office, "Dick Murphy's 10 Goals," 2002.
.
4	City of San Diego, "A Strategy for Updating the City's General Plan," General Plan, City of Villages.
2002. .
5	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 9, "Fact Sheet: Barrio Logan Environmental Justice
Project," 13 November 2000.
.
6	Kevin Delgado, "A Turning Point: The Conception and Realization of Chicano Park," The Journal of San
Diego History. Winter 1998, Volume 44, Number 1.
.
7	Ibid.
8	Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates, "Executive Summary,"
Barrio Educational Cultural Activities Complex Feasibility Study - Phase 1. February 1984. p. 2.
9	Delgado.
10	Ibid.
11	Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 17 July 2002.
12	Susanna Concha-Garcia, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San Diego
& Imperial Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.
13	Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates, p. 1.
14	Delgado.
15	City of San Diego, Barrio Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team, "Barrio Logan revitalization action
plan," September 1996. p. iii.
16	Ibid. pp. iii, 27.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
119
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
17 Pacific Institute; Lisa Owens-Viani and Arlene K. Wong, "Brownfields in Barrio Logan: New Word for an
Old Idea," in Brownfields Redevelopment: Meeting the Challenge of Community Participation. May 2000.
p. 65.
8 Ibid. p. iii.
19	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 9.
20	Ibid.
21	Ibid.
22	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Fact Sheet: Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental
Justice Action Agenda," November 2000. p. 35. .
23	Delgado.
24	Susanna Concha-Garcia, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San Diego
& Imperial Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.
25	Ibid.
26	Susanna Concha-Garcia, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San Diego
& Imperial Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.
27	Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates, p. 1.
28	Ibid.
9Q
Pacific Institute, p. 66.
30
Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 30 August 2002.
31	Forbis.
32	Forbis.
33
City of San Diego; Barrio Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team. p. 28.
34	Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 30 August 2002.
35
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Barrio Logan progress report for the Interagency Working
Group on Environmental Justice," Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects: An Interim
Report. December 2000.
36	Ibid.
37	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Health Coalition, Letter to potential
partners for the Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. San Diego, California. 9
January 2001.
38	Ibid.
39	Ibid.
40	Ibid.
41
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Revised Draft Partnering Agreement for
the Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project," Distributed at the Forum on Building
Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental Justice hosted by the International City/County
Management Association. Bethesda, Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.
42	Ibid.
43	Ibid.
44	Ibid.
45
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Presentation by Barrio Logan
Partnership," Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental Justice hosted by the
International City/County Management Association. Bethesda, Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.
46	Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Fact Sheet: Protecting Community Health
and Reducing Toxic Air Exposure through Collaborative Partnerships in Barrio Logan," Distributed at the
Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental Justice hosted by the International
City/County Management Association. Bethesda, Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.
47	Ibid.
48	Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, Electronic Communication. July 17, 2002.
49	Ibid.
50	Ibid.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
120
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Bridges to Friendship Partnership
1	W.J. Fountain, "Ward 8 In Profile: After Long Slide, Hope Peeks From Ruin," Washingtonpost.com. 28
May 1998.
2	Washington, DC: A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary, "Washington's Neighborhoods."
21 May 2002. .
3Mary Halnon, "Opportunity: Race in Anacostia through the Civil War," Crossing the River; Race,
Geography, and the Federal Government in Anacostia. 21 May 2002.
.
4Mary Halnon, "The Changing Face of Anacostia: Public Housing and Urban Renewal," Crossing the
river; Race, Geography, and the Federal Government in Anacostia. 21 May 2002.
.
5	Fountain, p. 1.
6	Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, Inc., "History of Southwest DC," 14 May 2002.
.
7	"The Changing Face of Anacostia: Public Housing and Urban Renewal," p. 1.
8	"History of Southwest DC," p 1.
9	Fountain, p. 1.
10	Fountain, p. 1.
11	U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, "HUD Helps Create Jobs and Revitalize SE
Washington To Help President's DC Economic Development Plan Succeed," 12 March 1997.
.
1 Global Environment & Technology Foundation, "Bridges to Friendship Overview," Bridges to
Friendship. 7 July 1998.
13	Bridges to Friendship Partnership, "Vision, Mission, and Statement of Purpose," Memorandum. 4 June
2001.
14	Global Environmental & Technology Foundation, "Community Empowerment Strategic Plan Outline,"
Bridges to Friendship. 10 July 1998. p. 3.
15	Bridges to Friendship Partnership, "Columbia Rising: A Series of Community Dialogues Approach," 7
May 2001.
16	Government of District of Columbia; Office of Planning, "Anacostia Waterfront Initiative," Welcome to
Washington District of Columbia. 22 May 2002.
.
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership
1	Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc, "Preliminary Assessment. Metlakatla Peninsula," Prepared for
Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle, Washington. 10 October 1996, pp. 7-10.
<	htt p ://www. a I as ka. faa. g ov/a n n ette/d ocs/Re po rts/>. document 17.
2	Brian C. Hosmer, American Indians in the Marketplace: Persistence and Innovation Among the
Menominees and the Metlakatlans: 1870-1920. (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1999).
pp. 138, 185-200.
United States Federal Aviation Administration, "Annette Island Environmental Restoration Issues,"
Anchorage, Alaska. August 1997, p. 1.
<	htt p ://www. a I as ka. faa. g ov/a n n ette/d ocs/Re po rts/ >. document 19.
4	Congressional Declaration, 48 U.S.C. 358, 3 March 1891.
5	Pacific Rim Planners, Inc, "Annette Islands -Coastal Zone Management Program. Public Hearing Draft
Report," Prepared for the Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle, Washington, June 1979, p. 1.
.
6	United States Federal Aviation Administration, "Annette Island Environmental Restoration Issues," p. 1.
7	Hosmer p. 200.
8	Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. p. 1.
9	Federal Aviation Administration - Alaska Region, " Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-2006,"
Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects Annette Island Alaska. April 2001, p.
4.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
121
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
10	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Fact Sheet,
"Brownfields Showcase Community -Metlakatla Indian Community, IKK,"EPA 500-F-00-228. Washington,
D.C. October 2000.
.
11	Ibid.
12	Ibid.
13	Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. p. 29.
14	Metlakatla Indian Community and Environmental Concern, Inc, "Metlakatla Indian Community Annette
Island Reserve Comprehensive Development Plan," 1972, pp. 59, 61.
15	Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc, "Preliminary Assessment. Metlakatla Peninsula," p. 14.
16	Ibid., p.15.
17	Alaska Department of Community & Economic Development, "Metlakatla. Alaska Community
Information Summary," Certified December 2001.
.
18	Ibid.
19	(1) Metlakatla Indian Community Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Meeting Summary," 12
September 2000. (2) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Fact Sheet," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. (3) William Booth, "In Alaska, Logging Ban and Local Hopes Collide," The
Washington Post. 15 August 2001. p. A01.
20	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
21	(1) Metlakatla Indian Community, "Metlakatla Indian EC Benchmark Summary Report," October 2001.
Metlakatla Indian Enterprise Community, EZJEC Communities. October 2001.
. (2) Metlakatla Indian
Community, "1999 Annual Report Executive Summary," Metlakatla Indian Enterprise Community, EZ/EC
Communities. .
22	Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc, "Preliminary Assessment. Metlakatla Peninsula," p. 5.
23
Metlakatla Indian Community, "Letter directed to FAA," 24 January 1995. (Included as an appendix in
United States Federal Aviation Administration, "Annette Island Environmental Restoration Issues,"
Anchorage, Alaska. August 1997. . document 19.
24
Federal Aviation Administration - Alaskan Region, "Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-2006", p.
7.
25	Ibid., pp. 7-8.
26	Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc,"Master Plan for Environmental Mitigation of the Metlakatla
Peninsula," Prepared for Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle, Washington. Revised January 1998.
<	htt p ://www. a I as ka. faa. g ov/a n n ette/d ocs/Re po rts/>. document 22.
27	"Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-2006" p. 7.
28	MOU Intergovernmental Workgroup, "Briefing Paper for the MIC Council." October 2000. p. 2.
<	htt p ://www. a I as ka. faa. g ov/a n n ette/d ocs/Re po rts/>. document 50.
29	"Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-2006" p. 12.
30	Federal Aviation Administration - Alaskan Region, "Annette Island. Proposed 2002 Program.
Operation Clean Sweep, Phase 1 and Phase 2," December 2001. p. 1.
31	MOU Intergovernmental Workgroup p 2.
32	Ibid., p. 6.
33	Ibid., p. 12.
34	Ibid., p. 19.
35	Ibid., p. 14.
36	Ibid., p. 25.
37	See Federal Aviation Administration - Alaskan Region, " Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-
2006."
38	Garth Beyette, Federal Aviation Administration - Alaskan Region, Project Manager, Electronic
Communication. 9 July 2002.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
122
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
Metro East Lead Collaborative
1	Mark Hodapp, "Group Takes Aim at Youth Problems Seeing Potential Fulfilled is goal," St. Louis
Journal. 11 March 2001.
2	Metro East Lead Collaborative, "Protecting Children's Health & Reducing Lead Exposure through
Collaborative Partnership," Environmental Justice Action Agenda Presentation. East St. Louis, IL. Slide
number 6.
3	Ibid.
4	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Metro East Soil Sampling
Work Update, 2000.
5	Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, "Protecting Children's Health and
Reducing Lead Exposure through Collaborative Partnerships," Federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice Demonstration Project.
6	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, "Lead Poisoning and Your Children,"
.
7Jim Getz, "St. "Five Star Lift," St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 05 July 2001, p. 1.
Jim Getz ."Officials Tackle Lead-paint Problems/' St. Clair-Monroe Post. 2001.
8	Bellville News-Democrat, "On Target to Fix Lead Problem," Belleville News-Democrat. 3 September
2000.
9	Norma Parish,. "Hospital Tests Children for Lead Poisoning in Metro East," St. Louis Post-Dispatch,"
September 2000. p. B+.
10	On Target to Fix Lead Problem, p. 1.
111bid.
12	Ibid.
13	Ibid.
14	Ibid.
15	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Protecting Children's Health and Reducing Lead Exposure
through Collaborative Partnerships," Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action
Agenda. Nov 2000. p. 25.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Protecting Children's Health and Reducing Lead Exposure
through Collaborative partnerships," Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects an
Interim Report. December 2000. p. 35.
New Madrid Partnership
1	"New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign Kick-Off Event," Child Health
Champion publication. January 30, 1999, p. 10.
2	Ibid., p. 10.
3	Ibid., p. 14.
4	Ibid., p. 10.
5	Ibid., pp. 13-14.
6	Ibid., p. 10.
7	Ibid., p. 11.
8	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, R7, "Demonstration Project Criteria Information," Integrated
Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action Agenda, p. 3.
9	Ibid.
10	"New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign Kick-Off Event" p. 9.
11Dr. Emil Jason, "New Madrid County Tri-County Child Health Champion Campaign Project," NEJAC
Meeting.
PowerPoint presentation, December 2000.
12	"New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign Kick-Off Event," Child Health
Champion publication. 30 January 1999. p. 9.
13	"New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign Kick-Off Event" p. 11.
14	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "New Madrid progress report for the Interagency Working
Group on Environmental Justice," Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects: An Interim
Report. December 2000. p. 49.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
123
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
15	"Action Plan," New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Pilot Project. 2000, p. 2.
16	"Demonstration Project Criteria Information," p. 5.
17	"Action Plan" pp. 2, 3, 6, 9.
18	"Demonstration Project Criteria Information," p. 3.
19	Ibid., p 5.
20
"New Madrid progress report for the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice" p. 46.
21	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Environmental Justice, "New Madrid County Tri-
Community Child Health Champion Campaign, Project Summary Sheet," Integrated Federal Interagency
Environmental Justice Action Agenda, EPA/300-R-00-008, November 2000, p. 29.
22	"New Madrid progress report for the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice" pp. 46, 48.
23	"Demonstration Project Criteria Information," p. 4.
24	"Action Plan" p 8.
25
"Demonstration Project Criteria Information," pp. 4-5.
26	"New Madrid progress report for the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice," p. 47.
27	Mathematica Policy Research, Inc - Embry Howell, Mary Harrington, Elizabeth Langer, Sara
Roschwalb, and Rebecca Kliman, Interim Report and Evaluation Plan: Child Health Champion Pilot
Program National Evaluation," Submitted to; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Children's
Health. 4 August 2000. pp. 2-3. . click on full-report.pdf.
28	Ibid., pp. 21-22.
29	Ibid., p. 24.
30	Ibid., p. D-5.
31	Ibid., see Appendix B.
32	"New Madrid progress report for the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice" p. 49.
ReGenesis Partnership
1	1)Tanya Bordeaux Hamm in cooperation with the Spartanburg Area Chamber of Commerce,
"Spartanburg: International Flavor, Southern Style," Printed in Mexico. 1999. Chapter Two. 2) U.S.
Census Bureau, "Population of Spartanburg County, South Carolina." Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF
1) 100-Percent Data. 27 November 2001. .
2	Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., "Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site:
Spartanburg, South Carolina," Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 4. 23
February 2001, pp. 3-2, 3-3.
3	1) Ibid., pp. 3-2, 3-4. 2) U.S. Census Bureau, "Population of Spartanburg city, South Carolina," Census
2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 27 November 2001.
.
4Community & Economic Development Department; Spartanburg County, Jennifer L. Vissage & Elena P.
Rush, Cooperative Agreement Work Plan Arkwright Superfund Redevelopment Initiative. 22 August 2001
(Revised 16 November 2001), p. 2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA Brownfields
Assessment Demonstration Pilot: Spartanburg County, SC, EPA 500-F-01-286. April 2001.
.
6	Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., "Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site:
Spartanburg, South Carolina," pp. 3-4, 3-5.
7	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA Brownfields
Assessment Demonstration Pilot: Spartanburg County, SC.
8	Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., "Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site:
Spartanburg, South Carolina," pp. 3-4, 3-5.
9	Ibid., p. 3-9.
10	Ibid., p. 3-16.
11	Ibid.
12lbid.
13	Ibid.
14	1) Ibid., p. 3-6. 2) Linda Conley, "Arkwright points an ailing finger at fertilizer plant," Spartanburg
Herald-Journal, 2 August 1999.
15Linda Conley, "Fighting to save his community," Spartanburg-Herald Journal. 19 October 2000.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
124
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
16	Federal Interagency Working Group, 'Sustaining Partnerships through Collaborative Action."
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice Brochure. February 2001.
17	Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp. p. 3-9.
18	Ibid., p. 2-1.
19	Linda Conley.
20
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, "Update Fact Sheet No. 2," Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study: Arkwright Dump Site. 25 May 2001, p. 3.
21	Ibid.
22U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, "Arkwright Dump," Fact Sheet, January 30, 2001, p.
1.
23
Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp. p. 2-3.
24
U.S. Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry. Final Health Assessment for Arkwright
Dump Site. Full cite forthcoming.
25	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, "Update Fact Sheet No. 2."
26	Ibid.
27	Ibid.
28	Ralph O. Howard, Jr., Arkwright Dump Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Region 4, Electronic communication, February 13, 2002.
29	"ReGenesis, Inc.: A Community-Based, Community-Driven Grass Roots Environmental Justice
Organization." Informational Piece on ReGenesis, Inc. (in Appendix 6: ReGenesis (Spartanburg, DC):
Background Materials. August 24, 2000. Ford Foundation Briefing Packet).
30	Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., "DRAFT Community Involvement Plan," International
Minerals and Chemicals Site: Spartanburg, South Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 18 May 2001, p. 3-14.
TetraTechEM Inc., "Expanded Site Inspection Report for the International Minerals and Chemicals Site: Spartanburg,
South Carolina," (approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 16 November 2000, p. 6-8.
32Conley.
33	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, "Fact sheet: Site Inspection (SI) Results: Former IMC
Fertilizer Site," Superfund Program. March 1999. p. 2.
34	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, "Fact sheet: IMC Fertilizer Site Update," Superfund
Program. May 2000. p. 1.
35	Ibid.
36	Howard.
37	Howard.
38	Linda Conley, "Arkwright residents take steps to revitalize their community Visions for the future,"
Spartanburg Herald Journal. 12 December 1999. (in Background Materials. August 24, 2000. Ford
Foundation Briefing Packet).
39	"ReGenesis, Inc.: A Community-Based, Community-Driven Grass Roots Environmental Justice
Organization." See "IMC Fertilizer Plant De-Construction Activities."
40	Howard.
41
"Arkwright residents take steps to revitalize their community Visions for the future."
42
Diane Norman, "Lawsuit takes aim at IMC over Arkwright site," Spartanburg Herald Journal. (Middle
Tyger Bureau Editor), 11 April 2001.
Administrative Order by Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and Removal, I nternational Mi nerals and
Chemicals Site, Spartanburg, South Carolina, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. 01-3753-C, 10 July
2001.
44	Linda Conley.
45
"Discovering Rhodia," Rhodia home page, . 5 December 2001.
46	Rhodia Inc. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Achievement Track.
Application Form. 3 August 2000. . 5 December 2001.
4 Conley, "Arkwright residents take steps to revitalize their community: Visions for the future."
48	Ibid.
49	Ibid.
50
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, Environmental Justice (EJ) Contributions in the
Waste Management Division (WD), U.S. EPA Region 4 - Southeast. Mid-April To Mid-June, FY 2001.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
125
Draft: 9.4.02

-------
51	Community & Economic Development Department; Spartanburg County, Jennifer L. Vissage & Elena
P. Rush, p. 7.
52
Brian Holtzclaw, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Electronic Communication, 23
August 2002.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
126
Draft: 9.4.02

-------