Comments and Contents

We begin this issue with a Viewpointdear to the editor's heart - a call forclarity of language in the preparation ofenvironmental documents. Our guest edi­torialist, Dr. Selina Bendix, is a veteranwriter of EISs who has often served as anexpert witness on toxic chemicals. Haz­ardous materials have become a concernfor decision makers at all levels of govern­ment. Informed and expeditious judg­ment, Dr. Bendix argues, depends onhow well environmental professionalstranslate complex scientific findings intointelligible lay language. This is the piv­otal element of the environmental reviewprocess, the point at which valid alterna­tives and mitigation measures arepresented.

Clarity of expression is much en­hanced, of course, by having accurate in­formation to express. Steve H. Murdockand his colleagues in an ongoing researchproject on the impacts of natural resourcedevelopment offer an analysis of the so­cioeconomic impact assessments whichappeared in a large group of final EISs.Their study reveals that much of the timedemographic information, though man­dated by NEPA, is either absent or inac­curate - an afterthought at best. Theauthors' comparison of population projec­tions in EISs with 1980 census findingsfor comparable areas provides the basisfor the contention that impact statementsprovide inadequate data, especially forstate and local decision making.

In the Social Impact Assessment de­partment, Larry M. Blair, Robert B.Garey, and Wayne Stevenson suggest atechnique that would enhance the devel­opment of the type of information Mur­dock et al, call for. Blair and his co-au­thors provide a model for making empiri-

Environmental Impact Assessment Review, V. J, N. 40I95.9255/H2/1200.)07103.00/0t:l1982 Plenum Publishing Corporation

cal estimates of the source of labor supplythat should help planners determine whatthe socioeconomic impacts of a large pro­ject might be. Their approach can beused to provide some basic estimates oflabor market effects, including some de­mographic and service-related changes.

Our first feature describes the devel­opment of another type of information in­creasingly important to planners of largeprojects. Carl H. Petrich presents the his­tory and methodology of the aesthetic im­pact assessment of a proposed nuclearpower plant in the Hudson River Valley.Primarily on the basis of the unmitigableaesthetic impact of the proposed plant,the NRC rejected the site - the firsttime in the history of the nuclear powerindustry that any site had been rejectedfor an environmental, nonsafety reason.

Aesthetic impact assessment requiresenvironmental professionals to develop aset of techniques to measure subjectiveexperience. In the SIA department, Rob­ert E. Coughlin and his colleagues pre­sent an approach to assessing aestheticattributes in planning water resource pro­jects. Both Coughlin and Petrich endorsethe use of visual simulations of proposedprojects, to be evaluted by a sample ofthe potentially affected public. Coughlin'sgroup recommends a four-phased proce­dure for evaluating the effects of one spe­cific type of project that might well beapplicable to others.

In the third feature, Penelope Cananand Michael Hennessy of the Universityof Hawaii suggest a method to incorpo­rate community values into the collectionof SIA data. The authors demonstratehow to compare the value structures oftwo or more groups which might be in­volved in a given development project.

ErA REVIEW 3/4 307

One objective of this study is to providecommunity leaders with a wa y to definerea l but intangible nee ds .

In our second AGENDA for Environ ­mental Negotiation, our contributors con­tinu e the discussion of regulatory negotia­tion initiated by Philip Harter in the last is­sue. Chris Kirtz, director of EPA's Negotiat­ed Ru lernaking Project, ou t li n es theapproach his group will ta ke to developingtwo demonstrations of regulator y negotia­tion. T he designers of the project hope toshow that negotiation can offset the delay,high cost, and lengt hy litigat ion often asso­ciated with current procedures.

In a theoretical discussion of negot iat­ed rulemaking , M arc Rodwin questions theapplicability and potential effectiveness ofsuch an approach in the context of U.S. in­stitutions and culture. He argues that cer­tain fundamental problems, base d in ourpolit ica l system, have been insufficientlyconsidered by enthusiasts of regulatory ne­gotiation. We hope AGENDA readers willshare their views on th is subject.

This issue also includes an extensiveexcerpt from the report of the Environmen­tal Conflict Management Practitioners'Workshop, held October, 1982 in floris ­sant, Colorado . We have selected extractsfrom participants' comments on many as­pects of current problems in the field of en­vironmental med iation and negotiation.

AGENDA concludes with a review ofth e new EPA handbook Using Mediation

308 EIA RE VIEW 3/4

l-fhen Siling Hazardous r1'tJste AianagemenlFacilities by Howard S. Bellman, CynthiaSampson, and Gerald W. Cormick. AndySachs comments on the large volume ofinform a tion - and the underlying as­sumptions - contained in this brief butuseful handbook.

In our book review for the entire is­sue, Ml 'T professor Joseph Ferreira, Jr.discusses Health Risks of Energy Technol­ogies, an AAAS Sym posia volume editedby Curtis C. Travis and Elizabeth L. Et­nier. Ferreira approves the book as asummary of the lat est assessments of thecom pa ra tive health risks of en er gy gen­er a t ion from several sources, notably coaland nuclear power. However, he pointsout the complexity of the methodologicalissues, and cautions that none of theemerging literature, including the bo okreviewed here, has suc ceeded in cla rifyingthem.

The editors are pleased with th is di ­verse g r oup of articles. 1 hope EIARrea ders find them useful and in formative .Please co ntinue to send me your contri­butions and crit icisms - it is your in­volvement that will keep the Review in theforefront of the increasing ly so p histica tedfield of environmental impact assessment.

Tere sa HillEditorApril I, 1983