Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
selection process contributed to the acceptance by the CAC in general and
the representative from the closest town in particular.
After the ROD was issued and even after review by the courts, an issue
surfaced with the residents of Cape Cod. The Cape Cod communities were
more than 40 kilometers from the selected outfall location but they were con-
cerned that the discharge would affect their beaches and marine mammals
in the area. Reports and presentations by the EIS team and supporting scien-
tists, gleaned from the studies supporting the EIS, did little to convince the
more skeptical and less rational elements in the Cape Cod communities. They
would not initially accept that adequate analysis had been done to understand
the impacts and confirm the prediction of no measureable adverse impacts to
beaches and marine resources at the closest locations much less 40 kilometers
away. However, when a former activist and outfall opponent representing
the closest community stood up at meetings and issued statements, even the
greatest skeptics took notice. She told the Cape Cod residents that she had
been involved throughout the process and was convinced by the studies and
analyses that her town, only about 8 kilometers from the discharge, would
not be impacted. The audience was then receptive to facts documenting that
their communities and resources lying five times that distance from the clos-
est and unimpacted community would not be at substantial risk. As described
in Chapter 10 (Section 10.1), subsequent monitoring studies of the outfall have
confirmed the EIS predictions, and no impact has been detected on Cape Cod
resources in 20 years of operation and monitoring.
4.4.3
Public Outreach Tools
There are many tools available to the environmental impact analysis practi-
tioner to maximize the benefits of a public outreach program. Many of the
primary tools are described under scoping (Section 4.3.3) and include meet-
ings, workshop/poster sessions, CAC, TAC, newsletters etc. However there
are additional important tools available that are most appropriate during
other steps in the environmental analysis following scoping, and these are
discussed below.
For many environmental impact analyses, there is more than one public,
and tools must be developed for each group. There are both active and inac-
tive publics with the active group dominated by stakeholders in the immedi-
ate geographic area with the potential to be affected on a day-to-day basis
by one or more of the alternatives. Direct contact, such as meetings and local
media postings, are appropriate tools to use for such groups that can be
focused on “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY). They are generally involved
early in the process and remain involved until their issue is resolved or the
area of impact stimulating their initial involvement is dropped from detailed
consideration.
Unless appropriate provisions are made and steps taken, the inactive pub-
lic does not surface until the end of the process when they suddenly realize
Search WWH ::
Custom Search