Overview and Initiating the Environmental Impact Analysis and Assessment - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 144

impacts of each alternative and ultimately for the proponent (RWA) deciding
which alternative approach would constitute the selected lake management
plan. Similar processes can be used on a variety of projects, plans, and policies
with adaptation to specific situations and composition of the public participants.
The CEQ recognizes the extensive benefits that can be derived from
an enhanced public outreach program. They have produced a handbook
advising NEPA practitioners on procedures for gaining the most out of
collaboration with stakeholders and list the following benefits (Council on
Environmental Quality 2007):
r Better information
r Fairer process
r Better integration
r Conflict prevention
r Improved fact-finding
r Increased social capital
r Easier implementation
r Enhanced environmental stewardship
Another benefit of positive and productive stakeholder participation is their
support for implementation of the proposed action and they can serve as
advocates throughout the process. In the case of the Boston Harbor Cleanup
EIS (see Chapter 10 for a summary discussion of the EIS), the U.S. EPA and
the EIS teams worked closely and frequently with the CAC and TAC. The EIS
team met at least bimonthly with both groups during critical phases of the EIS
preparation and they played an active role in alternative development, iden-
tification of issues of concern, and methods for impact analysis. A key issue
was the location of the treated effluent outfall (i.e., a pipe or tunnel structure
that conveys the effluent to the point of discharge in the receiving waters) and
outfall locations were considered within Boston Harbor, at varying distances
from the northern and southern entrances to the harbor. Committee members
with different concerns and points of view were represented on the commit-
tees, including representatives from communities in proximity to each of the
alternative outfall locations.
The final decision was the northerly location for the outfall, approximately
14.5 kilometers from the mouth of the outer harbor. Although the representa-
tive from the committee in closest proximity to the outfall (it was still several
kilometers from her community) was not thrilled with the selected location,
she supported the decision. She recognized the objective and unbiased sci-
entific and engineering studies that had gone into evaluation and prediction
of impacts. Also through the course of more than a year of working coopera-
tively with the EIS team, a sense of trust, mutual respect, and recognition of
issues had been established. Incorporation of the CAC concerns in the outfall