Whose information? Of what quality?

[Mary Hamel <hamelm@dnr.state.wi.us>]

Hi.  Mary Hamel with Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources here.

Forgive me if I repeat thoughts already expressed.  I'm having trouble coping with the number of comments, volume of some of them, and flow or structure of the conversation.  Generally I'm tracking this poorly.

What disturbs me about the introductory description of today's discussion on information is it's sole focus on how can EPA better disseminate information.  An important question, but only one aspect of "information" in public involvement, and, as pointed out, only one end of the spectrum of participation.

To me, this implies that EPA is only focused on their own info.  IS there an assumption here that others do not have valuable information to add to a project or decision?  What about the value of local knowledge, for example?

Similarly, what about the quality of the EPA's info -- where are concerns about how to make EPA's information more clear, concise, and useful.  A repository or web-page-equivalent of 3 file drawers of overly technical or bureaucratic information is not the best. 

Anyway, I'm wondering if the narrowness of the definition of today's topic is itself an indication of what needs to be improved to foster better public involvement by EPA in decisions.