The Use of Community-Driven Environmental Decision Making to Address Environmental Justice and Revitalization Issues in a Port Community in South Carolina

Abstract

Initiatives whereby community-based organizations, industry, and city officials work together to revitalize communities are invaluable. The Lowcountry Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC), a community-based environmental justice organization comprised of seven economically depressed African-American neighborhoods in North Charleston, SC, convened in response to the planned siting of a new port terminal near their community. Their efforts led to the development and implementation of a Community Mitigation Plan Agreement and Area Revitalization Plan to ensure that local efforts benefit all parties involved. The purpose of this study is to explore LAMC's process to organize; delineate barriers, challenges, and successes; discuss community-driven frameworks that address environmental injustice and socioeconomic disparities. This work could foster public policy on issues impacting other environmental justice communities.

Introduction

Environmental justice (EJ) is a concept used to describe the process of eliminating inequities to ensure all communities benefit from the systematic development, employment, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.¹ The Environmental Protection Agency's general definition of EJ is widely used; however, this concept represents different things to different people. According to Charles Lee,² EJ is a complex concept because it “represents a new vision borne of a community-driven process in which the core is a transformative public discourse on what constitutes truly healthy, livable, sustainable, and vital communities.” Other scholars have explained the challenges associated with defining environmental justice. In previous work, Sacoby Wilson has framed EJ in terms of national sociohistorical conditions associated with inequities in community development and planning and how privilege and “isms” are embedded in development and planning processes.^3–4 He introduces the term environmental oppression, referring to it as the antithesis of EJ and explores how community-based organizations, researchers, and advocates employ the EJ framework to address “social and environmental inequalities.”^3–4 Phillips and Sexton explain environmental justice as a multidimensional concept that changes with the scope of the problem.⁵ They undertake the issue of fair treatment by: 1) defining fairness in relation to environmental decisions, 2) characterizing the extent of unfair conditions, 3) exploring the scope of environmental concerns, 4) identifying people who are treated unfairly, and 5) determining the root cause of unfairness.⁵ In contrast, Bunyan Bryant uses a more holistic definition of environmental justice in his book Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions.⁶ He states that EJ is a macrosocial force that influences community sustainability, value, and capital through the regulations of laws.⁶ Bryant states that:

Environmental justice is served when is served when people can realize their highest potential, without experiencing the “isms.” EJ is supported by decent paying and safe jobs, quality schools and recreation, decent housing and adequate health care, democratic decision-making and personal empowerment; and communities free of violence, drugs and poverty. These are communities where both cultural and biological diversity are respected and highly revered and where distributive justice prevails.

The definitions provided by the aforementioned individuals and others such as Robert Bullard in Dumping in Dixie⁷ and the Quest for Environmental Justice⁸ reinforce the notion that environmental justice is a complex concept. However, we prefer to use the Bryant definition because it brings in to focus environmental justice as a holistic framework for addressing “isms” and how we can build healthier, sustainable, and just communities through the environmental justice framework and the implementation of revitalization strategies.

Reports on national environmental health have demonstrated how populations of color and low income populations are differentially exposed to poor environmental conditions and describe how location influences health risk.^9–13 Research suggests that these groups are more likely to reside in close proximity to waste facilities.^11,14 In addition, race plays a greater role than other factors in the spatial distribution of environmental hazards.¹¹ These exposures lead to poor health conditions, negative health outcomes, environmental health disparities.^3–4,10,14

One author suggests the key issue in addressing disparate issues such as environmental injustice is the lack of persons “who appreciate the problem and will work to see it solved.”¹⁵ This means to resolve EJ issues, impacted communities must form collaborative partnerships with multiple stakeholders and employ conflict resolution and consensus building techniques. Broader based partnerships have been attributed to the mitigation of undesirable health outcomes and stronger proposals which may be more beneficial to the community.^{3–4,15–17} Strategies to tackle key community issues should include regulatory practices, encourage community involvement and empowerment, foster partnerships, and establish an infrastructure that is sustainable, healthy, and beneficial for local residents.^16–20

Like many metropolitan areas in the nation, North Charleston, SC, hosts numerous environmental hazards and unhealthy land uses that differentially burden racial/ethnic and poor populations.²¹ The Low Country Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC), a community-based EJ organization, was founded to address EJ and health issues in North Charleston, SC and the Charleston region. We will detail the path LAMC took to organize; describe the development of a community mitigation plan agreement between LAMC, the South Carolina Ports Authority (SCSPA), and the City of North Charleston; discuss the successes of the Mitigation Plan Agreement; and detail barriers, challenges, and lessons learned.

Environmental Injustice and Community Mobilization in Metropolitan Charleston

Charleston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)

The Charleston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is one of the largest industrialized port cities in the nation.²² With substantive tourism and a flourishing trades system, Charleston is working to expand its economy in a growing global market.²³ In addition to economic growth, the city's population is predominately white (67.1%) and black/African-American (28.4%).²⁴ On average, the median household income is $52,302.²⁵ Many residents in Charleston live in poverty (14%).²⁶ Of those in poverty, children account for 19% and the elderly 12%. Unmarried women (33%) and all family households (11%) earned an income below the poverty line.²⁷

In North Charleston, the population is 48.7% African-American and 43.5% white.²⁸ The median household income is $36,461.²⁹ Thirty-nine percent of children in North Charleston and 43% of female headed households live below the poverty line.³⁰ Many low-income African-American residents in North Charleston are differentially burdened by environmental hazards in North Charleston, SC, which will be explained later in the article.

Proposed expansion of the Port of Charleston

Environmental justice issues in North Charleston have been largely ignored by local governing bodies. The planned expansion of the Port of Charleston provided an opportunity for things to change in the community. In 2002, the South Carolina General Assembly approved a Joint Resolution to relocate a marine port terminal to the Lowcountry (i.e., West side of the Cooper River and Naval Base).^31–32 The proposed port relocation prompted an environmental impact statement (EIS) by the Corps of Engineers and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) in order to determine the best location. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires that agencies conduct an EIS to assess the effects of proposed developments on environmental quality and the health of local communities.^32–33 The community's concerns about the potential negative environmental, economic, and health consequences of the proposed port expansion were not captured by the EIS. According to Herb Fraser-Rahim (written communication, September 2010), a retired naval engineer, community members believed the expansion would influence air quality, produce noise and traffic congestion, and hinder entrepreneurial and job opportunities.

Organization of the Lowcountry Alliance for Model Communities

In 2005, local African-American neighborhoods that are differentially burdened by port activities, diesel truck traffic, an incinerator, Superfund sites, and other industries organized a grassroots organization known as the Lowcountry Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC) to bring their concerns about the proposed port expansion to SCSPA. The EIS project identified 22 neighborhoods; however, only seven (Accabee, Chicora/Cherokee, Five Mile, Howard Heights, Liberty Hill, Union Heights, and Windsor) agreed to convene to form LAMC. Each of the seven neighborhoods is contiguous to the incinerator.³¹ Although the 22 neighborhoods were invited to join LAMC, several neighborhoods did not join because of the time it would take to engage in the process, as well as due to prejudices, uncertainty, indifference, and existing legal matters (i.e., Rosemont Community partnered with the Coastal Conservation League to submit a lawsuit to stop the port expansion).³⁴ Of those that joined, one representative (i.e., neighborhood president) from each community was selected to be on the LAMC board. As a result, community concerns such as affordable housing, zoning, and social issues including crime, teen pregnancy, and drug addiction were prioritized and integrated into the core values of LAMC.

With the unified mission to “advocate for environmental justice, promote community development, education, employment, quality housing, and community involvement,” LAMC became an organization with the capacity to help local neighborhoods address social and environmental issues in the region.³⁵

Development of the Mitigation Plan Agreement

When the draft EIS was released for public comment, the City of North Charleston's project liaison, Wannetta Mallette worked closely with LAMC to ensure the residents were properly informed about NEPA. With a better understanding of NEPA and the ramifications associated with relocating the port to the Naval Base adjacent to LAMC neighborhoods, LAMC conducted its own environmental review. Its report indicated that LAMC neighborhoods bore a disproportionate amount of the regional air, water, and land based pollution. These findings were supported by the Corps of Engineers' report stating the populations residing in LAMC neighborhoods met environmental justice criteria outlined in the Executive Order on Environmental Justice.^31–32

Since the EIS section on mitigation measures was minuscule (i.e., recommended use of community resources to remedy community issues by developing a master plan that incorporated community vision), LAMC developed a response to the EIS that reflected direct, indirect, and cumulative social, racial, institutional, and environmental impacts of the proposed new port terminal and new port access road.³¹ In 2005, discussions began between LAMC leadership and the SC Ports Authority on the development of a community mitigation plan. Unfortunately, the initial community mitigation plan was rejected. It primarily focused on the mitigation of negative consequences in terms of the natural environment which tends to be how industries address concerns of planned development. Six months after numerous volunteer hours, several public hearings, and stakeholder meetings the SCSPA, City of North Charleston, and LAMC developed a $4.08 million dollar Community Mitigation Plan (CMP) in 2006.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was used to bridge gaps in trust as well as provide the foundation for the partnership between the three entities. A list of the steps that facilitated LAMC's development, the development of the CMP, and other important milestones associated with LAMC partnerships are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1.

Key Outcomes, Barriers/Challenges, and Concerns or the Significance Associated with These Milestones

Year	Key Outcomes	Barriers/Challenges	Concerns/Significance
1999	Daniel Island port terminal Draft EIS was released to the public	Public outcry from Daniel Island residents, local politicians, environmental advocacy groups (including the EPA and Coastal Conservation League)	One component of the Daniel Island port project is a 13-mile rail spur that extends from the new terminal to an existing railroad near the Amoco plant. The route passes through several rural neighborhoods and the Francis Marion National Forest which would disproportionately affect persons of color and low-income residents.
2002	South Carolina General Assembly passed a joint resolution directing the SCSPA to begin EIS		Increasing awareness of environmental hazards and issues
2004	Corps notified the SCSPA of potential impacts of the proposed action	Public objection	Relocating the port would negatively impact the health and well-being of people in economically disadvantaged communities
	Preparation of an EIS
2005	Draft EIS was completed	EIS did not incorporate community interests or opinion	(1) Splitting neighborhoods
	LAMC formed		(2) Historic preservation
			(3) Social isolation
			(4) Revitalization and removal of blighting conditions
			(5) Changes in quality of life
			(6) Changes in neighborhood identification
2006	Development of the Community Mitigation Plan	Mistrust	Development of mitigation strategies
		Group interests	Developed MOU
2009	Revitalization Plan Developed	Limited participation and lack of community buy-in	Decrease environmental hazards
2010	Charleston City Council approved Revitalization Plan to be incorporated into the City's Master Plan	Limited participation and lack of community buy-in	First African American Community to develop its own Revitalization plan
			Incorporation into Master Plan allows LAMC to work on environmental issues void of litigation action (i.e., the potential for conflict is minimized)
			Gives LAMC access to City resources
			Adopting the plan equates to zoning protections and leveraging city resources (capital funds, TIF funds, city staff, etc.)

The final CMP addresses activities related to direct and indirect effects of the SCSCSPA's terminal in an Eight Point Plan.³¹ The Plan includes: 1) establishing a housing trust, 2) placement and monitoring of environmental receptors in the community, 3) support for education attainment programs, 4) establishing a Maritime Training Institute (i.e., Career Center), 5) establishment and support of local vendor assistance programs, 6) expanding health care and fitness amenities, 7) improvement of existing community centers, and 8) development of a community vision and master plan.³¹ The priority purpose of the agreement is “to enhance the quality of life for [North Charleston] residents … and bring about positive change for LAMC.”³⁶

Success of Lamc's Mitigation Efforts

Positive impact of the Mitigation Plan Agreement

Air quality is a major concern for LAMC residents and the possible increase in levels of air pollution in the region due to the port expansion may magnify these concerns. Local officials believe travel between the “Neck” area and Charleston will certainly have a negative effect on air quality when the port expands.³⁷ As part of the CMP, the SCSPA agreed to provide resources to place a permanent particulate matter (PM) monitor in the Charleston “Neck” area. Since 2008, SCDHEC has been conducting a PM saturation study to find the best location for the monitor in North Charleston. This information has been given to LAMC residents to keep them informed about PM levels in the region. There are added benefits of monitoring. For example, SCDHEC can expand its efforts to address residential concerns about air quality near local schools. SCDHEC has continuously monitored air quality around Chicora Elementary. Chicora is a school located in LAMC's Chicora/Cherokee neighborhood that is situated between several major PM sources including diesel truck traffic.³⁸

As an extension of its mitigation plan agreement, LAMC has partnered with the University of South Carolina to study EJ and health issues in the region. Prior to 2007, limited action-oriented research occurred on EJ issues in North Charleston. The partnership has been working to fill this gap. In 2009, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) provided a $1.2 million dollar research grant for the LAMC-USC community university partnership. The four-year grant is being used by the collaborative research team: 1) to study spatial disparities in the distribution of environmental hazards, industrial facilities, and unhealthy land uses in the Charleston region; 2) assess levels of particulate matter and heavy metals in and across LAMC neighborhoods; and 3) and use community-based participatory research and collaborative problem-solving model principles to build community capacity to address local environmental justice and health issues.

LAMC's Education Committee is using educational programming as a tool to empower local residents and advance local residents' career goals. To date, LAMC has awarded approximately $20,000 in college scholarships and After School programs through its endowment. In addition, the organization funded interns to participate in a Summer Enrichment Program (SEP) at the University of South Carolina (USC) in 2010. During the SEP, interns learned about environmental justice and were trained how to utilize geographical information systems (GIS) to map environmental hazards. Other program activities included: 1) a small block assessment project, 2) a field trip to the Hollings Marine Laboratory located in Charleston, SC, and 3) workshops on environmental epidemiology, health disparities, community-based participatory research (CBPR), resume writing, and finding funding for college and graduate school.

Due to the numerous successes of the Mitigation Plan Agreement, LAMC, the City of North Charleston, and the SCSPA received an EPA Environmental Justice Achievement Award in 2009. The EPA recognized this partnership as an innovative partnership between community, industry, and government in addressing local environmental justice issues by bringing multiple stakeholders together to collaborate in environmental decision making. In March 2010, SCDHEC presented LAMC with a Leaders in Environmental Action Pilot Program (LEAP) award for $25,000 in part due to the success of its mitigation agreement and its status as a model EJ organization in the state of South Carolina and the United States. LAMC is one of four South Carolina organizations that received pilot project funds. Funds from the award will primarily be used to aid in building capacity. Recently the funds were used to hire AmeriCorps Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) personnel to help implement both the mitigation and revitalization plans.

Development of the Community Revitalization Plan

An additional success of LAMC's mitigation efforts was the development of its revitalization plan. One of LAMC's negotiating points in CMP was resources to revitalize its neighborhoods. In 2009, LAMC established a process to help with the development of a comprehensive revitalization plan that delineates strategies for reinvestment in the LAMC neighborhoods. At the beginning of the plan development process, LAMC and the City of North Charleston partnered with AECOM, BP Barber, Asset Property Disposition, Inc., and Planners for Environmental Quality to profile community demographics, housing trends, environmental issues, transportation needs, infrastructure gaps, educational information, land use, public safety, etc.³¹ Information was retrieved via seven public visioning workshops which gave residents in each LAMC neighborhood an open forum to discuss problems facing their community and highlight what they envisioned for LAMC's future.³¹

To ensure community participation, public visioning workshops were held at three different LAMC community centers. The workshops identified top issues for each LAMC neighborhood as well as the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to address the environmental problems. Findings from the workshops and concerns established by the LAMC Working Groups yielded a master priority list framed by the revitalization plan.³¹ The list details the issues to address and what solutions the revitalization could provide.

The majority of attendees who completed post-workshop surveys, felt the location and time of the session was convenient and indicated that their attendance was the result of seeing a flyer/announcement or hearing about the event by word-of-mouth. Participants felt comfortable discussing their ideas openly and believed the issues raised would be taken into consideration by the consulting team. Evaluation responses are listed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Workshop Evaluation Responses

Participants who completed an evaluation after attending the workshops felt including the community was important for the Revitalization Plan and that the information provided was worthwhile. All of the additional comments provided on the survey are listed.
Workshop Evaluation Responses
• “More advance notice of meetings; weekend meetings only; more community involvement; and a PA system for presenters.”
• “Good presentation, EDAW staffs really made me feel as though they were concerned with our issues and thoughts, good opportunity to discover what the community wants.”
• “This is a huge task and I would love to see them come to fruition in my lifetime.”
• “Montague/Stromboli concepts are needed right away.”
• “We will make every effort to hold our politicians & surrounding neighborhoods accountable.”
• “Would like to see what could be done to keep the liquor stores, check cashing, night clubs and porno stores out of our neighborhoods along with drug activity.”
• “As a small business owner, I take pride in working with the LAMC to improve and protect our communities.”
• “The issues were clearly documented.”
• “Our elected officials should have been here but I highly commend Councilman Brown.”
• “The revitalization of Reynolds Ave is very exciting.”

In 2010, the City Council approved adoption of the LAMC Area Revitalization Plan into the City's Master Plan, which is a testament to its legitimacy.

With the support of our District 10 councilman, Mr. Michael Brown [a former LAMC president], LAMC was able to get North Charleston City Council approval for incorporating the Revitalization Plan into the City's Master Plan. This also required coordination with Mrs. Wannetta Mallette, MAC Project Manager, in setting up a schedule with 1st and 2nd readings of the request for inclusion of the revitalization plan into the City's Master Plan.

–Herb Fraser-Rahim (written communication, September 2010)

With this approval, LAMC's Revitalization Plan became the first master plan of a community-based organization to be incorporated into the overall master plan for a city in the state of South Carolina.

Barriers and Challenges in Improving Community Involvement to Address Local Ej Issues

Even with the new level of collaboration across neighborhoods, LAMC still faced challenges. For its mission to be effective and neighborhoods to operate as one unit, each neighborhood had to relinquish autonomy. A community leader referred to this as “giving up control to outsiders.” Naturally, operating as a single organization rather than individual neighborhoods led to loss of autonomy, but it also signified executing a community agenda in care of or to ensure the welfare of all citizens residing in LAMC neighborhoods. Some of the concerns that arose include the sharing of authority with regards to overlapping community issues, maintaining autonomy as a member of LAMC, financial and administrative responsibilities, and management of the organization. In addition, another important issue was the position that LAMC took on the port expansion approved by the South Carolina General Assembly. Some members of the community proposed legal action against the SCSPA rather than mitigation. By taking the mitigation route, LAMC had to navigate tensions between it and other stakeholders that sued or planned to take additional legal action that could unduly influence implementation of the Mitigation Plan Agreement. Particularly, LAMC had to manage and negotiate relationships with entities that may or may not represent the interests of LAMC residents.

For example, the Coastal Conservation League (CCL), an environmental advocacy organization whose members are primarily white and do not reside in the LAMC neighborhoods, partnered with the Rosemont community, a primarily low-income African-American neighborhood adjacent to the LAMC neighborhoods that is currently maximally exposed to pollution from industrial and port activities and will be directly affected by port expansion, to submit a lawsuit to stop the port expansion. This lawsuit created friction between LAMC, Rosemont, and CCL. The lawsuit has been settled, but because of the lawsuit and divergent approaches to address local EJ and health problems that affect all EJ communities in North Charleston, the maintenance of a productive relationship between LAMC and Rosemont has been at times tenuous and LAMC leadership has reservations about working collaboratively with Rosemont on the port issue or revitalization efforts.

Development of the Mitigation Plan Agreement

Once the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed, there were tensions surrounding the public's participation in the EIS process. Project Manager Wannetta Mallette's perspective (written communication, September 2010) was that LAMC neighborhood presidents believed they were not adequately consulted nor were their interests adequately represented at the onset of the DEIS public participation process. On assignment from the City, Ms. Mallette was tasked to respond to the draft EIS and engage LAMC in the response process by educating residents about the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Over the course of six months, she met with community leaders and a representative from the State Ports Authority to develop a response to the DEIS. During this process, tensions surrounding LAMC's environmental and economic issues were more apparent. “The LAMC neighborhoods are surrounded, for the most part, by light or heavy industry. When confronting local industry with these concerns you get a ‘mixed bag’ of responses. In all instances negotiations with the industrial neighbors is required in order to come to a meeting of the minds,” stated Herb Fraser-Rahim, a long time resident of the Accabee neighborhood (written communication, September 2010).

Coordination between LAMC, the City of North Charleston, and the SCSPA had other challenges. Wannetta Mallette stated that working with LAMC was “an uphill battle because of trust issues with the government and limited steps to engage community” in certain efforts. “There was general agreement that establishing a [CMP] agreement was a good idea,” says a LAMC leader (written communication, 2010). On the other hand, “of greater concern were the logistics associated with establishing the Mitigation Advisory Committee board such as who would be on the board, and the level of authority that the board would have.” For this reason, having LAMC at the table at the beginning of the process ensured the development of strategies that would maximize community benefits and concomitantly mitigate unfavorable environmental and social impacts.³¹

Implementation of the Mitigation Plan Agreement

LAMC receives marginal support from state representatives when implementing its Mitigation Plan Agreement. Many of the state representatives on the Mitigation Plan Committee are not present consistently at regular meetings. Other representatives have not participated in LAMC's efforts to address the port-related activities or revitalize the neighborhoods including cleaning up Superfund sites and closing the incinerator. They have not been present during important community meetings or have not sent a representative to show their support for their constituents. This inconsistent pattern of support creates an additional barrier for LAMC when trying to navigate the different interests of powerful industries, businesses, and other stakeholders; interests that may be contrary to the goals and objectives outlined in the Mitigation Plan Agreement.

In addition to the port relocation, LAMC experienced and continues to experience challenges with rail traffic. The organization has taken the position that no rails can pass through the southern part of North Charleston, which is clearly stated in its Mitigation Plan. The plan also states that LAMC has the ability to negotiate with the City about rail decisions provided that certain environmental and economic issues are addressed and the organization is included in the planning process. However, some city officials that were participated in the negotiations of the Community Mitigation Plan Agreement or have been advocates for its full implementation are supportive of plans to bring a new rail line to the LAMC neighborhoods.³⁹ So, even with the agreement, we see that there is still tension in how the revitalization plan is being implemented and conflict resolution between partners has to be an on-going process.

Community participation in mitigation and revitalization activities

Since LAMC organized, it has been engaged in local and national environmental health efforts such as voicing community concerns at town hall meetings, developing statements for environmental justice issues in the area, and applying for local and national grants to fund revitalization efforts in Charleston. Even with all of its efforts, many local residents are unaware of its activities.

In July 2010, LAMC held “A Day of Neighborly Need" event to showcase their efforts and successes. The event involved providing updates on the Community Mitigation Plan with a focus on the Revitalization Plan and community discussions about environmental justice issues. For example, LAMC showcased the model block development project spearheaded by the City of Charleston in collaboration with LAMC. The purpose of the model block is to utilize existing community assets to build up LAMC neighborhoods for growth and enhancement purposes. Representatives from University of South Carolina, SCDHEC, LAMC, and Councilman Michael Brown were in attendance and made presentations and several local health organizations provided educational materials, health tips, and shared their services with the community.

Unfortunately, community participation was minimal and some residents at the event mentioned that they only attended because they saw a large group of people gathering at the local community center. This lack of participation and awareness about the event reveals LAMC's constant struggle to maintain involvement beyond the core leadership team and to get residents involved in environmental justice activities. It also illustrates the difficulties associated with ensuring and sustaining resident participation in mitigation and revitalization activities.

Lessons Learned

The art of negotiation and humility are important when dealing with social and environmental justice issues. First, it is important that community voice is present at the beginning and every stage of process. One LAMC leader stated (written communication, September 2010), “Community leaders/representatives were identified early in the process and sustained throughout the process.” Secondly, it is important to ensure that all parties involved are competent and knowledgeable about the issues. In this case, it was vital that LAMC as well as partnering entities were well-informed enough to educate other stakeholders about environmental, transportation, land use planning, and community development and revitalization needs. Thirdly, it is important to remember Rome was not built in a day, which means addressing issues that have been prioritized by residents takes time. Mr. Fraser-Rahim (written communication, September 2010), head of LAMC's environmental committee, states, “You must be willing to work long hours if necessary. From a community perspective … 80% of the work will be done by 20% of the people.” In addition, it took time for the parties involved to address mounting tensions. Issues subsequent to the partnership were resolved using conflict resolution and consensus building during the development of the CMP.

Honesty, trust, and creation of a transparent process are needed to ensure the solutions that are negotiated come to fruition rather than get shelved by partners. Furthermore, having local government support like LAMC had from the North Charleston mayor has been crucial to ensure community issues are acknowledged and implemented into the City's agenda. Another lesson learned involves partnerships. Few public health issues have ever been resolved without some form of collaboration. Lastly, it is important to have a process in place to rectify or respond to the dissemination of misinformation. Any time groups organize and participate in civic engagement and local environmental decision making, issues can arise whereby individuals or entities interested in derailing or usurping the process cause the dissemination of misinformation. This misinformation may lead to distrust and tension between partners and local residents and negatively affect the long-term sustainability of LAMC's efforts to address EJ and health issues, empower local residents, and revitalize its neighborhoods.

There are many examples of community groups across the country organizing and collaborating with partners and stakeholders to address environmental justice and health issues as LAMC has done in North Charleston, SC. Some of these efforts are highlighted in Bullard's Dumping in Dixie⁷ and Quest for Environmental Justice.⁸ We briefly highlight a few specific examples of community groups in the Southeast that have or are using collaborative problem-solving principles and revitalization approach to address their local EJ and health issues. The ReGenesis Environmental Justice Partnership was established in Spartanburg, SC in 1998.⁴⁰ ReGenesis used collaborative problem-solving to solve local EJ issues with a major focus on engaging and involving local residents in revitalization efforts. These efforts, led by Harold Mitchell (who was at the time a community leader and now is a South Carolina state representative), local industry, the City of Spartanburg, and SCDHEC resulted in the remediation of Superfund sites, removal of environmental contamination, creation of a health center, brownfield redevelopment, construction of quality housing, and economic development.⁴⁰ During this partnership, over 200 million dollars has been leveraged to revitalize ReGenesis neighborhoods and the ReGenesis model of collaborative problem-solving was adapted by the EPA as its national EJ collaborative problem-solving model.

Despite its success, this collaborative effort was not seamless. Prior to the establishment of the ReGenesis Partnership, there was discord between governing bodies (the city vs. county and state vs. federal) on who was responsible for cleaning up the sites and who had the authority to make decisions about the cleanup process.⁴⁰ In addition, there was tension and conflict between ReGenesis and the local government about their role in ignoring the environmental justice and health issues in the community and the role the government played in acting as barrier to the community's effort to seek redress for the long-term contamination of the community from local industry. Similarly, there was tension between ReGenesis and SCDHEC who ReGenesis members believed to have performed poorly in its duties in investigating the environmental health issues and protecting the health and welfare of local residents. Of course, there was also tension between ReGenesis and the industries that left contaminated Superfund and brownfield sites which created a riskscape for local residents. The collaborative problem solving process was initially quite difficult because of the tension in the relationships between all of the parties, but over time consensus was built, conflicts were addressed, trust developed between parties, and the process led to revitalization-focused solutions.

Founded in 1994, the West End Revitalization Association (WERA) fought to keep a highway bypass out of low-income communities and for their right to have basic amenities (i.e., publicly regulated sewer and water infrastructure, paved roads, gutters, roads built with proper ingress and egress, good housing stock, access to emergency services) in Mebane, NC. WERA filed complaints at the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA in 1999 that highlighted violations of public participation laws in the planning of the highway bypass and the lack of basic amenities as an environmental justice issue.^{16–17,19–20} During their initial efforts to address these issues, WERA leaders and residents were discriminated against and received threats from local government officials. WERA developed a partnership with researchers and students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to collect data on infrastructure disparities and water quality problems in order to support its demands for environmental justice.^{16–17,19–20}

In addition, through funding from the EPA, WERA established a collaborative problem-solving partnership adapted from the ReGenesis model that included local residents, public health experts, researchers, planners, lawyers, federal officials, and local government to use conflict resolution, consensus building, and resource leveraging to address the lack of basic amenities and the highway planning issue.^{16–17, 19–20} Even though, there still was a high level of tension between WERA and local officials and true conflict resolution was minimal, WERA was able to build trust and good relationships with many partners and leveraged these relationships to encourage the city officials to improve its involvement of local stakeholders in the highway planning process. In addition, the leveraging of these collaborative relationships, led to first-time installation of sewer and water services for nearly 100 homes in the WERA neighborhoods, paving of roads, and improvements in basic amenities.^{16–17, 19–20} However, WERA's revitalization efforts will not be complete until all housing stock is improved, all WERA residents have infrastructure, and quality of life is enhanced for everyone.

Conclusions

Prior to the organization of LAMC, minimal progress was being made to address environmental, social, and economic problems that burden underserved populations of color in North Charleston, SC. The development of LAMC's community mitigation plan agreement is an example of collaborative problem-solving model principles at work. In this article, we have detailed the strides LAMC has made to work with the City of North Charleston, the SCSPA, and other stakeholders to involve residents in local environmental decision making that can help revitalize EJ communities and mitigate unhealthy living conditions. LAMC's efforts reveal that collaboration with local organizations and institutions encourages community empowerment and the mobilization of resources to affect positive social and environmental change. We anticipate LAMC's best practices and lessons learned could be used by other communities impacted by environmental injustice, rapid urban development, and industrial activities particularly goods movement activities (i.e., cargo ships, ports, rail, diesel truck traffic) within and beyond the Southeastern region of the United States.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Environmental justice. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/. 2010 July 23.

Lee

. Environmental justice: building a unified vision of health and the environment. Environ Health Perspect., 2002; 110,suppl:2141–2144.

Wilson

. Environmental Justice Movement: A Review of History, Research, and Public Health Issues. J Public Man & Soc Pol., 2010; 16,1:19–50.

Wilson

. An ecologic framework to study and address environmental justice and community health issues. Environ Just., 2009; 1:15–23.

Phillips

, Sexton

. Science and policy implications of defining environmental justice. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol., 1999; 9:9–17.

Bryant

. Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies and Solutions. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1995.

Bullard

. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality, 3rd. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000.

Bullard

. The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of Pollution. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press, 2005.

Payne-Sturges

, Gee

. National environmental health measures for minority and low income populations: an approach for tracking environmental health disparities. Environ Res., 2006; 102:154–171.

10.

Gee

, Payne-Sturges

. Environmental health Disparities: a framework integrating psychosocial and environmental concepts. Environ Health Perspect, 2004; 112:1645–1653.

11.

Bullard

, Mohai

, Saha

, Wright

. Toxic wastes and race in the united states: toxic wastes and race at twenty: 1987–2007. Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle Environmental Racism in the United States. Cleveland, OH: United Church of Christ, 2007.

12.

Sexton

, Olden

, Johnson

. Environmental justice: the central role of research in establishing a credible scientific foundation for informed decision making. Toxicol Ind Health, 1993; 9:685–727.

13.

Mohai

, Saha

. Racial inequality in the distribution of hazardous waste: a national-level reassessment. Soc Probl., 2007; 54,3:343–370.

14.

Wilson

, Hutson

, Mujahid

. How planning and zoning contribute to inequitable development, neighborhood health, and environmental injustice. Environ Just, 2008; 1,4:211–216.

15.

Burby

. Making plans that matter: citizen involvement and government action. J Am Plann Assoc., 2003; 69,1:33–49.

16.

Heaney

, Wilson

. The West End Revitalization Association's Community-Owned and -Managed Research model: development, implementation, and action. Prog Community Health Partnersh, 2007; 1,4:339–349.

17.

Wilson

, Bumpass

, Wilson

, Snipes

. The West End Revitalization Association (WERA)'s right to basic amenities movement: voice and language of ownership and management of public health solutions in Mebane, North Carolina. Prog Community Health Partnersh, 2008; 2,3:237–43.

18.

Bullard

, Johnson

. Environmental justice: grassroots activism and its impact on public policy decision making. J Soc Issues., 2000; 56,3:555–578.

19.

Wilson

, Wilson

, Heaney

, Cooper

. Use of EPA collaborative problem-solving model to obtain environmental justice in North Carolina. Prog Community Health Partnersh, 2007; 1,4:291–4.

20.

Wilson

, Wilson

, Heaney

, Cooper

. Community-driven environmental protection: reducing the P.A.I.N. of the built environment in low-income African-American Communities in North Carolina. Social Justice In Context, 2007–2008; 3:41–58.

21.

Wilson

, Fraser-Rahim

, Richard

, Svendsen

, Zhang

, Williams

. Community-University Environmental Justice Partnership to Examine Environmental Health Disparities in North Charleston, South Carolina. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American public Health Association, Denver, CO, November 2010.

22.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Waterborne Foreign Trade Containerized Cargo. http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_indicators/august_2002/Special/html/Waterborne_Foreign_Trade_Containerized_Cargo.html. 2007 November 10.

23.

Encyclopedia Britannica. Charleston. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/107477/Charleston. 2010 September 30.

24.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008 American Community Survey. http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=31000US16700&-qr_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_DP5&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=308&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false. 2010 September 28.

25.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008 American Community Survey. http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=31000US16700&-qr_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_DP3&-context=adp&-ds_name=&tree_id=308&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false. 2010 September 28.

26.

US Census Bureau. 2008 American Community Survey. http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/NPTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_NP01&-geo_id=31000US16700&-gc_url=&-ds_name=&-_lang=en. 2010 September 28.

27.

28.

US Census Bureau. 2008 American Community Survey. http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4550875&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-gc_url=&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false. 2010 September 28.

29.

US Census Bureau. 2008 American Community Survey. http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4550875&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-gc_url=&-ds_name=&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false. 2010 September 28.

30.

US Census Bureau. 2008 American Community Survey. http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/NPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4550875&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_NP01&-gc_url=&-ds_name=&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false. 2010 September 28.

31.

Low-Country Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC). LAMC area revitalization plan: final plan 2009. http://www.lamcnc.org/programs.htm. 2010 August 2.

32.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District. Final environmental impact statement proposed marine container terminal at the Charleston Naval Complex North Charleston, South Carolina. 2006. http://www.porteis.com/project/documents.htm. 2010 September 27.

33.

The National Environmental Policy Act Part 1500–Purpose, Policy, Mandate 1978. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1500.htm. 2010 September 27.

34.

Hull

. Adding lanes to I-26 on table; changes near planned port terminal could affect Rosemont neighborhood. The Post and Courier, May 12, 2007 Charleston, SC.

35.

Low Country Alliance for Model Communities. Purpose and mission. http://www.lamcnc.org/purpose.htm. 2010 September 1.

36.

City of North of Charleston. Community Mitigation Plan. http://www.northcharleston.org/residents/community/neighborhoods/mitigationplan.aspx. 2010 September 29.

37.

South Carolina Department ofHealth and Environmental Control. http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/CharlestonNeckStudy/. 2010 September 28.

38.

South Carolina Department ofHealth and Environmental Control. http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baqNorthCharleston/monitoring_the_air.asp. 2010 September 28.

39.

Kropf

. Summey pushes rail plan; mayor urges action as grant deadline looms. The Post and Courier, August 6, 2010 Charleston, SC.

40.

Fleming

. When environmental justice hits the local agenda: a profile of Spartanburg and Spartanburg county, South Carolina. Public Management., 2004; 86,5:1–10.