RE: Identifying the Interested Public

[Peter Schlesinger <pschles@starband.net>]

Who are the true stakeholders and What should EPA be doing to be sure that all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate? 

Good questions. Stake holders are not necessarily abutters. In our region, citizens of the town of Falmouth are abutters to the military reservation, but no contamination from the Impact Area where I review studies will directly affect them (that is, no explosive or other geochemical constituent will go from the Impact Area into the Town of Falmouth). However, the citizens of the Town of Falmouth are in fact true stakeholders, because they will rely upon any good source of water that is found in the northern 15,000 acres of the Massachusetts Military Reservation to replace that water contaminated by the Superfund sites in the southern part of the Base. They are stake holders because they are potential users of the natural resources in the vicinity of the area being studied by EPA.

EPA should be making presentations at major Town meetings and supporting talks at town libraries and schools, getting the word out. This is not done in our area to my knowledge. I am aware that funds are tight, but local public have been calling for more citizen input for some time on our Review Team. The only response to this has been EPA offering invitations to representatives of 4 recognized groups (1 of which is the Wampanoag Indians, and the other 3 are state/regional agencies). The emphasis on increasing public participation has been placed on getting parties to the table who can actively contribute something that is perceived as missing by EPA Region 1 from our discussion. Our MMR Impact Area Review Team here has no representatives from the opposition groups (STRONG, PACERS, Veterans) even though these groups are active and vocal in our region. These folks attend our meetings, have been calling for additional representation, but have not been officially invited to take part. 

While I am confident with the EPA Team working in our region, I perceive that they have aligned themselves very closely with environmentalists (of which I am one). In all good decisions, it takes many minds, not just those with whom you agree. If we want to make sure our policies are upheld/respected locally, then having them made by representatives of all factions is most useful. Although I can't find it on this website anymore, there was a quote on this site yesterday from Administrator Whitman connecting democracy and responsibility. I think that EPA has a responsibility to make sure that all sides are heard from. Direct participation on a review team gives a member more ability to speak than if they were sitting in the audience. I believe EPA's argument for not allowing those folks at our table is that they have as much access in the audience. From a participant's perspective, this isn't true.