Stakeholders from various sectors of the community were interviewed
during the Basis of Planning phase to gain an understanding of the
various community priorities, issues and concerns regarding wastewater
management. The objective was to understand the variety of community
issues early in the planning process so they could be considered during
the review and identification of wastewater management alternatives.
Spokane County Utilities staff and members of the HDR planning team
developed a list of community stakeholders to interview. The
stakeholders represent a variety of agency, business association,
development, industry, and environmental sectors of the community. The
following stakeholders were interviewed in May and June 2000 (unless
noted otherwise):
City of Millwood, Eva Colomb and Clev McCoul
Spokane Regional Health District., David Swink
Washington Department of Health, Craig Riley
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Kevin Robinette
Spokane Conservation District, Walt Edelen
Spokane Aquifer Joint Board, Ty Wick
Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, Loren Mitchell
Spokane Area Chamber of Commerce, Rich Hadly and Dan Kirshner
Economic Development Council, Ken Olsen
Spokane Home Builders, Mark Richard
Taylor Engineering, Mike Taylor
Tomlinson Black Real Estate, Bob Tomlinson
Spokane Industrial Park, Rob Gragg
Avista Corp., Bob Mansfield
Inland Empire Paper, Wayne Frost and Rick Fink
Spokane County Planning Commission, Mike Britton
Internal Neighborhood Alliance, Bev Keating
Lake Spokane Protection Association, Clem Crowston
Friends of the Little Spokane River, Vern Streeter
Washington Environmental Council, Bev Keating
Lands Council, Michelle Nanni
Trout Unlimited Spokane Falls Chapter, David James
Attempts were made to schedule interviews with the following
stakeholders, however, the planning team was not able to make contact
with them to arrange for and conduct the interviews:
Private Golf Course representative, Mike Senske
Spokane League of Woman Voters, Pam Behring
The stakeholders interviewed had a variety of opinions relating to the
questions asked. The following discussion presents the questions asked
followed by the opinions, issues and concerns that were raised by the
stakeholders.
The County currently manages the collection of wastewater in its sewer
service area:
§
What are your impressions of the current operations?
§
Do you have any concerns?
§
Do you have suggestions for improving operations?
Stakeholder comments:
§
Many of the stakeholders indicated that the County
Utilities section has continually been upgrading and doing a good job,
that they have had a good relationship with the County, and that they
have been able to work things out. Because of this it was noted that
there should be minimal sewer maintenance requirements. It was also
noted that the County has done a good job in coordinating sewer
construction with other road projects. Support was also expressed
regarding the move to a Bond funded program.
§
Some stakeholders indicated that it seems like the County
has moved slowly to provide sewer service. Concern was raised that more
sewer service is being added in the outlying areas and not always
provided where it could be best utilized by industrial developments --
it would be good to see more funding for expanding sewer service more
quickly into the areas that need it most.
§
Many stakeholders were concerned that County sewer
capacity is expected to run out in 2007 and that there will not be
adequate wastewater capacity to accommodate growth. Some stakeholders
indicated that the County needs to do a better job of long-term planning
and keep up with current development service needs (i.e., in UGA).
§
Many stakeholders indicated that they feel the County is
too dependent on the City of Spokane for sewer service needs, along with
the interest in seeing more integration between City and County.
Concern was also noted that the City interceptor pipes are not
adequately sized to accommodate the County sewer flows.
§
Most stakeholders indicated that the urban areas should be
sewered, especially in the Aquifer Sensitive Area, and that the County
seems to be playing catch up to eliminate septic tanks. Concern was
expressed that Aquifer Protection Funds had been used in early years for
eliminating septic systems outside Aquifer Sensitive Area. A couple
stakeholders indicated that they have never seen a community this large
with so many septic tanks. Concern was also raised about how long it is
taking to sewer existing developments that are having septic failure
problems (i.e., Pine River Park). An interest in seeing a more
aggressive plan to get the urban areas sewered was expressed, along with
support for the double plumbing requirement in areas that are planned to
be sewered in the future. It was also noted that the County should do a
better job of thoroughly reviewing percolation studies required for new
development projects to ensure that approved septic systems will
function properly.
§
A couple of stakeholders noted that infiltration and
inflow contributions to the City of Spokane's sewer lines should be
addressed so that there is more capacity for the County's wastewater
flows.
§
It was recommended that the County needs to focus on the
original reason why the Aquifer Protection Funds were set up and
remember that County residents feel that they own 10/44th of
the City Wastewater Treatment Plant.
§
Concern about the ability of the water districts to keep
up with the County's acceleration of sewering was also noted; some water
districts may not have the revenue to install the water systems in
conjunction with the new sewer lines that are being installed ahead of
the 1996 schedule.
Wastewater generated in the County is sent, via a network of pipes, to
the Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and
operated by the City of Spokane. A 1980 inter-local agreement
established the basis for the City to treat up to 10 million gallons per
day of County generated wastewater. The County expects to exceed that
capacity by the end of 2007.
§
What are your opinions of this institutional arrangement?
§
What do you see as the advantages and/or disadvantages of
Spokane County taking on a greater level of wastewater management, which
could include wastewater treatment, in the future?
§
Do you see advantages and/or disadvantages of a separate
regional entity being established to manage wastewater in the entire
Spokane urbanized area?
§
Do you have any thoughts on what type of entity would make
sense?
§
Should alternative financing and implementation approaches
be considered, such as private ownership or design/build approaches?
Stakeholder Comments were as follows:
§
Numerous concerns were raised regarding the current
City/County institutional arrangement regarding wastewater treatment.
Concern was raised that the County is reliant on the City, especially
since the County is more stable and seems to have better leadership.
Additional comments included: need for City and County leadership to
work better on wastewater management issues; the arrangement was good
initially, but negotiations have not worked over last few years; need
more than inter-local arrangement; lack of trust has been an issue; City
has a terrible attitude and should re-pay grant money if they do not
maintain the plant as a regional facility; and City not expanding plant
with consideration of reserving County's 10 mgd. A couple of
stakeholders felt that the inter-local agreement approach was good and
that it does not duplicate services, however it was noted that politics
can get in the way.
§
Most stakeholders felt that there were more advantages
than disadvantages associated with the County taking on a greater level
of wastewater management. Typically it was viewed that it would give
the County more control and improve their ability to plan for future
capacity and growth needs, increase development opportunities, that it
could save money, that it could result in treatment at locations closer
to the point of waste generation and reduce cost of interceptors, that
it could result in more treatment and less pollution to aquifer and
river, and that it would take the politics out. It was also indicated
that the County should consider the possible City of Spokane Valley
incorporation in its evaluation, and the possibility that it could be an
incentive to give more control to the Valley.
§
Some of the possible disadvantages regarding the County
taking on a greater level of wastewater management included the concern
that it: would duplicate services and cost more; would reduce the
County's funding opportunities; would create more City/County "turf
wars"; creates an anti-regional process; may result in an organizational
structure that may not be flexible enough to address the needs of new
businesses; and may affect the ability of existing industrial
dischargers to meet temperature and DO requirements if a new treatment
plant is built in Valley area.
§
The majority of stakeholders interviewed felt strongly
that there should be a regional approach to managing wastewater in the
Spokane urbanized area, and that the approach should include long-term
planning in addition to facility and service operations. Some of the
stakeholders went so far as to suggest that Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene
should be included since they also discharge to the Spokane River, and
that it should include all of the private dischargers and the Spokane
River Phosphorus Technical Advisory Committee.
§
Some of the advantages described regarding the
establishment of a regional entity included: improved economy of scale
from consolidation of services; better planning and aquifer protection;
taking the political pulls out of process; creating one entity to go to;
improved cooperation and reduced conflicts between City and County; and
stronger voice with state Ecology and Fish and Wildlife departments.
§
Suggestions for the type of regional entity included: a
Seattle Metro type system; a new special purpose district similar to the
Arena Public Facility District or airport board; a system with public
ownership separate from the City and County and private management; a
system that includes a stakeholder board with voting power; an entity
that includes key representatives from the City and County; a consortium
such as the Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater and Thurston County wastewater
management entity (LOTT); similar to a regional health district; similar
to the Spokane Aquifer Joint Board; and a process that involves state
and federal environmental agencies.
§
Some of the concerns described regarding establishment of
a separate regional entity included: a possible lack of coordination
between different services; perception that it creates another level of
government; concern that it would cost more; and that it is not
realistic to think our community would support establishment of a
separate entity. One stakeholder did not see any advantages and thought
that the County could take care of their own needs.
§
The majority of the stakeholders felt that all alternative
financing and implementation approaches should be considered. Many felt
that outsourcing may be alright, but do not want the public agency to
lose control, want to maintain public sector accountability, maintain
public access to records, ensure quality assurance and quality control,
and ensure compliance with both the City and County Comprehensive
Plans. Some felt that it is not necessary to privatize and expressed
concern about privatization, while others thought that privatization is
the way to go.
§
The Washington Department of Health representative
indicated that the planning project must look at reclamation
alternatives per regulatory requirements.
Some older City of Spokane areas have a sewer system that combines
sewage and storm water in the same pipes. During periods of significant
rainfall and snowmelt, the pipes overflow to the Spokane River. These
overflows must be reduced to meet water quality regulations. In the
effort to reduce these overflows, which best expresses your point of
view:
§
Because the City of Spokane has the combined sewer pipes,
they should pay the cost of the needed improvements.
Stakeholder Comments. Two stakeholders agreed with this
point of view. Additional comments included: it is a City problem and
we already paid our share.
§
The County ratepayers should share in the cost so that
more capacity is available to transport County wastewater to the City
treatment plant.
Stakeholder Comments. Seven stakeholders agreed with this point
of view. Additional comments included: County could have more
capacity, and a longer time to reach a mediated settlement with the
City; benefits the River and lakes by getting untreated sewage out of
River; cost sharing should be proportional to effort, contribution and
benefit; consider cost ramifications of treatment not just separation;
if it is fair to County residents and speeds sewering effort; if County
can benefit then they should participate; and City helps pay for County
sewers so County should participate.
§
The cost should be shared by all in the region because we
all benefit if our rivers and lakes are cleaner.
Stakeholder Comments. Twelve stakeholders agreed with this point
of view. Additional comments included: it would be a difficult
position to sell to the public; do not want to see separate storm
systems with new direct discharges to River; makes sense from regional
water resource management perspective; should be what is best for entire
region; if those paying are on sewers; the issue is important to all of
us; and cost sharing may not be equal.
Participants were asked to rank potential wastewater management issues
(from 1 to 9, with 1 representing the highest priority) to indicate
which are of greatest interest and concern to the public and their
stakeholder group. The results are shown in Table 6‑1.
Table
6‑1. Rating
Response for Other Wastewater Management Issues
|
Item No. |
Item Description |
Public Rating |
Stakeholder Rating |
|
1. |
Public health |
Range 1 to 5; median 2 |
Range 1 to 5; median 2 |
|
2. |
Aquifer/drinking water protection |
Range 1 to 5; median 2 |
Range 1 to 8; median 2 |
|
3. |
Spokane River water quality protection |
Range 2 to 6; median 4 |
Range 1 to 6; median 3 |
|
4. |
Opportunities for recycling/reclaiming treated wastewater |
Range 5 to 8; median 7 |
Range 2 to 9; median 5 |
|
5. |
Water conservation |
Range 3 to 8; median 7 |
Range 2 to 8; median 6 |
|
6. |
Cost |
Range 1 to 5; median 2 |
Range 1 to 8; median 5 |
|
7. |
Maintaining development opportunities |
Range 2 to 8; median 5 |
Range 1 to 8; median 6 |
|
8. |
Providing economic development incentives |
Range 3 to 8; median 6 |
Range 2 to 9; median 6 |
What are your top priorities, issues and/or concerns regarding
wastewater management in Spokane County?
Stakeholder Comments. Most stakeholders felt that their
opinions were captured in the Question 4 ranking (see above).
Additional comments included: County needs to have a regional,
long-term, cost-effective management system in place; need to increase
sewer capacity without increasing impact to the environment; maintaining
development opportunities is key; need to have sewers to protect
sensitive areas and cover GMA; need to sewer and reduce the negative
affects of imported water; don't want sewers next to Little Spokane
River if it will bring more dense development; County needs to check
industrial discharges to the sewer; recycling and reclaiming wastewater
should be top priority; system should be reliable to alleviate upsets;
additional priorities should be fisheries, recreation, boating,
in-stream aquatic habitat, and in-stream flows; County Utilities should
do a better job of working with water districts; and implement joint
planning with City, and think regionally.
Eventually, due to physical and environmental constraints, the County
may not be able to send all of its wastewater to the City plant for
treatment. During this planning process, the County will be
investigating several alternatives and we would like your initial
thoughts and insights on these possible alternatives. (Note: As you
consider these alternatives, please remember that in each case the
wastewater effluent will have received an advanced level of treatment
and will meet or exceed all federal, state and local requirements for
protection of human health, groundwater standards, and aquatic habitat.)
§
Discharge of treated wastewater effluent to the Spokane
River, using one or more new treatment plants located between Liberty
Lake and the City of Spokane.
Stakeholder Comments. Most stakeholders indicated that
this seems like the most viable and desirable option. Only 5 of the 21
stakeholders raised concerns which included: concern about high
temperatures in this stretch which is considered a safety zone for cold
water salmonids due to springs that bring in cold aquifer water;
discharge to the river should be the last alternative considered, reuse
and reclaim uses should be considered first; water quality and fisheries
protection are concern; oppose any new treatment plants that could
impact the Spokane River and Long Lake and interfere with existing
dischargers ability to discharge treated effluent to the Spokane River;
and could be difficult to get public acceptance due to recreational uses
on this stretch of river.
§
Discharge of treated wastewater effluent to the Little
Spokane River, providing flow augmentation in the Little Spokane River
to help meet minimum stream flow needs
Stakeholder Comments. Approximately half of the
stakeholders did not support this option or expressed specific concerns
about the ability to gain public acceptance. Some indicated that the
flow augmentation could be a benefit, where others felt that it was
questionable that flow augmentation could be achieved. Examples of the
concerns include: need to ensure very high level of treatment; location
does not seem good due to difficulty of piping enough effluent to a new
plant; would need to see a lot of data and review environmental impact
statement to support, but agree that it should be looked at during the
planning process; concern about nitrate levels, temperature and low
flows; concern that the river system is too small; Wild and Scenic River
status, recreational use and public perception will make it difficult to
gain support; concern about impact to Long Lake and other dischargers
options/ability to discharge treated effluent; should not be direct
discharge to river, augmentation should mimic historic conditions; and
could be problematic due to intertie of aquifer with the Little Spokane
River.
§
Use of treated and reclaimed wastewater for irrigation of
agricultural lands
Stakeholder Comments. All of the stakeholders felt that
this is a good idea and that it should be evaluated and strongly
considered. Some of the concerns or caveats to their comments
included: questioned if could get the effluent to a large enough
agricultural area that would remain agricultural over the long term;
need to make sure the right crops are used, some concern was raised
about heavy metal build up and food crops; concern raised about public
perception and cost; and it was noted that it would not be acceptable in
West Plains/scab lands, but Peone Prairie has good soils.
§
Use of treated and reclaimed wastewater for irrigation of
golf courses, school grounds and parks
Stakeholder Comments. Most of the stakeholders felt that
this is a good idea and good reuse option if standards are met.
Approximately eight of the stakeholders expressed concerns about public
perception, safety of using effluent on school grounds and parks where
children play, public health, odor, build up of contaminants, and
feasibility of getting effluent to reuse areas.
§
Use of treated and reclaimed wastewater for creation of
wetlands
Stakeholder Comments. The majority of the stakeholders
supported this option and felt it was good to explore. Some indicated
the benefits of increased treatment, the need for up-front planning, and
the need for qualified staff to assess. Several stakeholders sited
Cheney's wastewater plant as an example. Concerns raised by others
included possible buildup of metals, adequate soil types and need for
lining, cost, available land, and effectiveness in northern tier states
with cold winters.
§
Underground storage of treated and reclaimed wastewater
for subsequent use for irrigation or release to streams for flow
augmentation during critical low-flow periods.
Stakeholder Comments. Most of the stakeholders felt that
this is a good idea that should be explored, but many were unclear how
it would be done (effluent storage) and how it could be done cost
effectively. Some of the additional comments and concerns included:
questioned if quantity of effluent would be enough to augment stream
flows, and suggested that water conservation be used to reduce effluent
storage requirements.
§
Recharge of the Spokane Aquifer with treated wastewater
effluent, with the co-mingled water being available for all uses
including potable water supplies
Stakeholder Comments. Only a couple stakeholders
expressed support for considering this option. Comments included: lack
of public acceptance and ability to sell due to public health concern;
quality concern due to lack of dilution in aquifer since it moves so
slowly; concern about quality of water; opinion that aquifer does not
need to be recharged; not like to hear aquifer and wastewater in same
sentence; risk is too high; and too much potential for human
error/treatment system failure. A couple stakeholders thought it should
be explored, that examples from other places should be provided, and
that education of the public should begin now.
§
Discharge of wastewater to the Liberty Lake treatment
plant for treatment and subsequent discharge to the Spokane River
Stakeholder Comments. Most of the stakeholders felt this
was an acceptable option and some indicated that it might be more
feasible and less costly since it is an existing facility. However,
many of the stakeholders expressed various opinions regarding the
viability of the option from a political standpoint (e.g., Liberty Lake
Board has said it will not accept new annexed sewer areas, Liberty Lake
incorporation may be obstacle, plant not originally designed to be large
enough). Other comments included: concern about how large of a
geographic area could discharge to the Liberty Lake plant; perception
that it would reduce the conveyance piping needs for the Valley area;
concern about increased temperature in the Spokane River; concern about
economical feasibility; concern about impact on existing dischargers
options; and that it makes sense from a collection standpoint.
§
Other alternatives you think should be considered
Stakeholder Comments. The following additional ideas were
provided: consider industrial re-use in the Valley with possible
satellite plants close to the Spokane Industrial Park and Kaiser; sell
tertiary treated effluent to Inland Empire Paper for re-use; consider
mini-plants at various locations around County; look at how much water
conservation would help reduce wastewater flows and increase available
capacity; evaluate the benefits and cost of public education efforts;
consider cutting edge technologies; consider silviculture application;
evaluate separation of gray water for onsite irrigation and replacement
of old toilets with low flow models; and separate City stormwater from
combined systems to increase capacity at the City plant.
The byproducts of wastewater treatment are called biosolids. When
treated properly, these biosolids can be recycled as a soil amendment in
forests, farmlands or as compost. Do you favor recycling of biosolids in
this manner?
Stakeholder Comments. All of the stakeholders supported
recycling of biosolids. Some indicated the need to meet applicable
standards and permitting regulations, consider economics, and overcome
negative public perceptions. Concerns were also expressed regarding
content of biosolids, build up on farmlands, difficulty of getting to
forests, and areas with nitrate concern in groundwater.
Some wastewater management approaches incorporate more recycling of the
treated effluent and biosolids for uses such as irrigation, wetlands
creation, and soil amendments. However, sometimes these approaches may
be more costly. Are you willing to pay a higher wastewater rate to
achieve such recycling benefits? If so, how much per month?
Stakeholder Comments. The majority of the stakeholders
supported paying more to achieve recycling benefits. Many did not know
how much more they would pay, while others indicated a willingness to
pay between $5 and $10 more per month, or 5 to 15% more per month. One
stakeholder indicated support for paying double. Several of the agencies
did not have a position and a few stakeholders indicated that they felt
the public would not support paying more. It was also noted that the
County should explain clearly to the public which wastewater recycling
elements would cost more to use.
The present aquifer protection program to extend sewer service includes
substantial subsidies of the cost. Currently, the County subsidizes
approximately 25% of the cost associated with new developments. Do you
think subsidies for wastewater costs should continue to be provided to
new development?
Stakeholder Comments. Some stakeholders were unclear what
the subsidy applied to and questioned the subsidy statement, but felt
that some subsidy may be acceptable when you consider new development's
benefit to public. Others felt that some public subsidy may be all
right due to the public benefit of protecting the aquifer. Some felt
that it is necessary from an economic development perspective, but that
it should not go beyond the current level, that it should be phased out
over ten years, or that it should focus on low income. Five
stakeholders felt that no subsidy should be provided and that developers
should pay their own way. Some felt that new developments should pay
impact fees. Some felt that the subsidy might be acceptable if it
applied to existing developments/homeowners getting onto sewers. A
concern /question was also raised regarding whether new development
subsidies could possibly result in new developments that are not
consistent with the County's new Comprehensive Plan.
If it becomes necessary for the County to build another wastewater
treatment plant at a new site, do you think the County should consider
providing enhancements to the site (such as a community park, trails or
other such features) even if it makes the project more costly? If yes,
what criteria should be considered?
Stakeholder Comments. Eleven stakeholders did not feel
that recreational enhancements should be incorporated into the site,
primarily because of the odor issues and no one wanting to visit a
wastewater treatment plant site, and because community enhancements are
not the primary goal of the project and should not pose an increased
cost. Ten stakeholders felt that recreational enhancements would be
good to consider, especially if there was a need for more
parks/facilities in the area. It was also noted that the facility
should be set up for tours and include educational elements, that public
grants should be sought for the community enhancements, that there
should be a need for any enhancements, and that the enhancements can be
maintained and are safe. Almost all of the stakeholders indicated that
aesthetics should be considered during design and construction of a new
facility and that there should be an adequate buffer and lots of
beautification/landscaping.
If a new wastewater treatment plant were proposed near your
neighborhood, what criteria would be important to gain your acceptance
of the facility and its location? Are there offsetting benefits that
could be offered as part of the facility design and operation?
Stakeholder Comments. Ideas included making the facility
aesthetically pleasing with landscaping and buffer areas; minimize odor,
noise, light and traffic impacts; incorporate redundant treatment to
address odor; eliminate blighted area with new facility; make new
facility "invisible"; create walking paths, parks and recreation
opportunities; create wetlands, bird habitat and wildlife corridor
(especially in the Little Spokane River area); offer free sewer service
within specified distance of facility; develop regional/satellite
facilities with reclamation tailored to area; and locate facility close
to Inland Empire Paper so they can re-use the treated effluent. A
couple stakeholders indicated that there was nothing the County could do
to gain their support for a facility in their neighborhood, not even
free sewer service, due to concern about odor, water quality, and
property values.
What additional advice would you give Spokane County as it evaluates
long-term wastewater management alternatives? What criteria are
important to you in selecting a wastewater management approach?
Stakeholder Comments. Additional advise included:
increase capacity without negatively impacting the environment; consider
impacts on private wells; making sure the site is large enough to
incorporate future expansions and lasts "forever"; consider efficiency,
cost, environment, and long-term management; use best science and
community involvement to avoid cost driving project decisions; continue
to eliminate septic systems and do not allow development if service is
not available; consider all water resource management issues in
evaluation (including stormwater, groundwater, imported water);
incorporate recycling, reuse and reduction into management system;
consider cost of getting effluent to a new facility, not just facility
construction costs; incorporate early public participation; think
regionally, beyond City and County, and minimize political influences;
show leadership by making tough decisions; provide sewers where most
needed; and make sure technical staff that did initial wastewater work
are involved (e.g., Esvelt and Saltaro).
What type of public education techniques would be most effective for the
County to use to get information out to the public and receive input on
proposed wastewater management alternatives? What type of information
and topics do you feel are most important to reach the public?
Stakeholder Comments. Public education techniques
suggested included: using news releases and media to constantly bombard
public with information; consider hiring a public relations firm; use
Channel 5 as an outlet; use newspaper and utility bill inserts; spots at
movies/previews; develop sewer computer game; information kiosk at
Valley Mall; presentations to neighborhood councils and at coffee
groups; outreach to businesses; get information out to kids through
schools; lots of public meetings; series of open houses (not public
meetings) with interactive opportunities; provide opportunities for
public to provide suggestions on alternatives and funding; show and tell
display/presentation for schools, Rotary, etc.; get information on web
page; and develop an integrated City and County education/discussion
process (in conjunction with forming a regional wastewater management
entity).
Information and topics suggested included: making public aware of
limited capacity, and need for more capacity, without being alarmist;
information on volume of wastewater that goes through plants; explain
how sewer service area will change and what that means; present
alternatives and cost/benefit information; opportunities and advantages
of re-use and recycling; sell idea of long range program and opportunity
to help develop program; educate public on how fortunate we are to have
clean drinking water; information on limits of our water supply; the
importance of water conservation and how people can conserve water;
environmental affects of wastewater treatment and disposal; protection
of the river and aquifer; and tell the public how it affects them so
they understand the need to get involved.
Finally, we want to identify people in the community who are interested
in being involved in the planning process. Would you like to continue
to be involved in the planning process? In what way? Do you have any
suggestions of who else may want to be involved?
Stakeholder Comments. All of the stakeholders wanted to
continue to be informed about the project and opportunities for input
and many had suggestions of others to keep informed. All of the
stakeholders and those individuals and groups that were suggested will
be included in a project mailing list to ensure that they are kept
informed during the project.
Some stakeholders also indicated an interest in having additional
involvement during the project, or providing additional assistance,
which included: involvement on an advisory committee or project focus
group meetings; assistance in getting information out to organization
members; assistance with public outreach; and participation in speakers
bureau.
