Forecasts And Environmental Decision Making: The Content And Predictive Accuracy Of Environmental Impact Statements

317 Pages·1987·28.047 MB·\317

by  Paul J. Culhane (Author)

Forecasts and
Environmental Decisionmaking
Social Impact Assessment Series
C. P. Wolf, General Editor
Women and the Socia~ Costs of Economic Deve~opment: TWo
Co~orado Case Studies, Elizabeth Moen, Elise Boulding, Jane
Lillydahl, and Risa Palm
Socia~ Impact Assessment and Monitoring: A Cross-DiscipLinary
Guide to the Literature, Michael J. Carley and Eduardo Bustelo
Integrated Impact Assessment, edited by Frederick A. Rossini
and Alan L. Porter
Pub~ic Invo~vement and SociaL Impact Assessment, Gregory A.
Daneke, Margot W. Garcia, and Jerome Delli Priscolli
AppLied SociaL Science for Environmenta~ PLanning, edited by
William Millsap
Guide to SociaL Impact Assessment: A Framework for Assessing
SociaL Change, Kristi Branch, Douglas A. Hooper, James Thompson,
and James Creighton
SociaL Impact AnaLysis and DeveLopment PLanning in the Third
WorLd, edited by William Derman and Scott Whiteford
DifferentiaL SociaL Impacts of RuraL Resource Deve~opment,
edited by Pamela D. Elkind-Savatsky
Forecasts and Environmenta~ Decisionmaking: The Content and
~edictive Accuracy of EnvironmentaL Impact Statements, Paul
J. Culhane, H. Paul Friesema, and Janice A. Beecher
A Systems Approach to SociaL Impact Assessment: TWo ALaskan
Case studies, Lawrence A. Palinkas, Bruce Murray Harris, and
John S. Petterson
Forecasts and
Environmental Decisionmaking
The Content and
Predictive Accuracy of
Environmental Impact
Statements
Paul j. Culhane,
H. Paul Friesema,
and Janice A. Beecher
I~ ~~o~~!;n~~:up
LONDON AND NEW YORK
First published 1987 by Westview Press, Inc.
Published 2018 by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an inf orma business
Copyright© 1987 Taylor & Francis
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form
or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 87-50986
ISBN 13: 978-0-367-00597-9 (hbk)
Contents
. . . . . . . . . .
list of Tables and Figures • vii
. . . . . . . . .
Preface • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • i X
1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AND FEDERAL
DECISIONMAKING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1
Public Decision Theory •••••••• • . . . . . • 2
The National Environmental Policy Act 6
Impact Assessment Methods • • • • • • • • • • • 10
Contending NEPA Reform Models ••• • • • • • • • • 13
Plan of the Book •••••••••• • • • • 18
2 THE EVOLUTION OF THE NEPA PROCESS • • • • • • • 23
The Statute • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 24
The NEPA Process • • • • • • • • • • • • 27
The Format of EISs • • • • • • • • • • • • 38
Conclusions •••••••••••••• • • • • 43
3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SAMPLE SELECTION • • • • 45
Implementation Theories and Concepts • • • 45
Sample Selection and Methodology ••••••••• 48
The Implementation Study Sample • • • • • • • • 50
Completion Status of the Study Sample • • • • • 55
Implementation Pathologies •••••••••••• 57
The Field Sample ••••••••••••••••• 64
Project Descriptions ••••••••••••••• 66
Completion Status of the Field Sample ••••••• 76
Conclusions • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• 80
v
4 IMPACT FORECASTS: THE CONTENTS OF EISs 81
The Ideal EIS Prediction • • • • • • • • • • 82
Reality: The Vague EIS Forecast • • • • • 85
Patterns of Forecast Imprecision • • • • 104
Discussion • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 111
5 PROJECT RECORD KEEPING AND OTHER OBSTACLES
TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITS • • • • • 119
. . . . .
The Ideal Impact Audit Model •••• 120
Field Data-Gathering •••••••• 124
. . . . .
Data Availability •••••••• 127
Measuring Forecast Accuracy ••••• 137
Agency Self-Monitoring and
Rational Environmental Assessment 143
6 PROJECT IMPACTS: THE ACCURACY OF . . . .
INDIVIDUAL FORECASTS • • • • • • • • • 147
Four Representative Projects' Impacts •••••• 147
Additional Representative Impacts • • • • • • • • 192
Summary • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 223
. . . . .
7 FORECAST ACCURACY: A SUMMARY ••• 227
The Distribution of Accuracy Classifications • • • 228
Beneficiality and Accuracy • • • • • • • • 239
Accuracy and Forecast Precision • • • • 242
Institutional Factors • • • • • • • • • 245
Case-by-Case Explanations • • • • 250
Conclusions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 253
. . . . . . . . .
8 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OR SIMPLICITY? 257
Rational Analysis and EISs • • • • • • • • • • • 258
Environmental Impacts and EISs • • • • 262
Environmental Auditing • • • • • • • • • • • 263
Rethinking EISs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 265
. . .
Appendix: Research Methods 273
. . . . . .
List of Abbreviations 285
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bibliography 287
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Index •••• 301
vi
Tables and Figures
TABLES
2.1 Contents of an example EIS • • • • • • • • 39
3.1 Selection of the implementation sample • • • • 49
3.2 Implementation sample by lead agency • • • 51
3.3 Implementation sample by project type • • 52
3.4 Completion status of sample projects • 56
3.5 Implementation pathology categories • • • • • • 59
3.6 Implementation pathologies by project category 62
3.7 Implementation pathologies and project statuses 63
3.8 Completion status of the field sample • • • • • 78
4.1 Types of forecast impacts. • • • • • • • • • • 86
4.2 Substantive categories and types of forecasts • 93
4.3 Forecasts and the ideal prediction model 97
4.4 Forecasts' selected measurement units • • • • • 100
4.5 Beneficiality, population, timing, and salience 102
4.6 Index of forecast imprecision • • • • • • • • • 105
4.7 Imprecision scores of subgroups of forecasts • 106
5.1 Accessibility of data during fieldwork • • • • 126
5.2 Impact types of field-sample cases • • • • 128
5.3 Units of measurement of field data • • • • 131
5.4 Quality of field data • • • • • • • • • • • 133
5.5 Quantification of forecasts in field sample 138
6.1 Paint Creek dam forecast impacts ••••••• 149
6.2 Minimum in-stream flow, Paint Creek dam • • 153
6.3 Sequoyah uranium hexafluoride plant impacts • • 166
6.4 Grand Teton National Park master plan impacts • 178
6.5 Cleveland harbor disposal site impacts • • • • 189
6.6 Skipanon bridge, upriver development • • • 218
7.1 Direction of field-sample forecast impacts •• 228
7.2 Match between forecasts and actual impacts 230
vii
7.3 Predictive accuracy and case characteristics • 234
7.4 Impact-forecast matches and impact categories • 235
7.5 Forecast accuracy among impact types • • • • • 237
7.6 Predictive accuracy and forecast beneficiality 240
7.7 Impact beneficiality • • • • • • • • • • • 241
7.8 Predictive accuracy and forecast precision 243
7.9 Forecast accuracy, population, and timing • 244
7.10 Accuracy ratings of EISs in field sample • 246
7.11 Accuracy, project types, and lead agencies 248
7.12 Reasons for forecast accuracy ratings • • • 251
FIGURES
5.1 The interrupted time-series model of impacts • 122
5.2 The Beanlands-Duinker assessment model • • • • 123
6.1 Paint Creek dam, flood control • • • • • • • • 150
6.2 Paint Creek reservoir, limnological conditions 154
6.3 Paint Creek dam, property tax • • • • • • • • • 159
6.4 Paint Creek area, agricultural productivity • • 161
6.5 Paint Creek reservoir and park, recreation • • 164
6.6 Sequoyah UF6 plant, ambient radiation • • • • • 168
6.7 Sequoyah UF6 plant, ambient fluoride ••••• 170
6.8 Sequoyah UF6 plant, groundwater quality • • • • 172
6.9 Grand Teton master plan, recreation visitation 182
6.10 Grand Teton master plan, forest fires • • • • • 184
6.11 Grand Teton master plan, concessioner economics 187
6.12 Monticello station, property taxes • • • • • • 194
6.13 U.S. 53 and U.S. 8, traffic safety • • • • • • 197
6.14 Shepard Park development, school enrollment •• 199
6.15 Monticello station, ambient radiation levels • 202
6.16 Jackson airport, airline enplanements • • • • • 204
6.17 Monticello station, generating reserve capacity 207
6.18 Illinois Beach park, short-term tax loss ••• 209
6.19 Illinois Beach park, long-term tax base • • • • 211
6.20 Hiwassee unit plan, payments in lieu of taxes • 213
6.21 Weymouth-Fore harbor, shipping efficiency • • • 220
viii
Pre~e
This research was supported by grant PRA-8119299 from
the National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research
and Analysis, to Northwestern University. Its purpose was
to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the forecasts in a
sample of federal environmental impact statements (EISs).
Since federal agencies devote much staff time to writing
environmental assessments, the accuracy of those assessments
is an intrinsically important issue. Indeed, the accuracy
of environmental assessments has become an international
question, as indicated by a 1985 conference in Banff,
Canada, a 1986 special issue of Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, and other projects devoted to the subject.
In this book we evaluate the match between the reality
of EIS writing and the ideals of rational analysis, the
pathologies of project implementation, and other issues that
extend beyond the predictive accuracy of EISs. We examine,
in effect, a major federal attempt to impose rationalistic
reforms on government decision makers.
This study has roots in several institutions. The
senior authors began examining the NEPA process in 1973 at
Northwestern University's Center for Urban Affairs, and
planned to evaluate the predictive accuracy of EISs as part
of their program of NEPA studies (Culhane and Friesema 1978:
30-32). We developed specific plans for the study as part
of the environmental policy program at The Instit~te of
Ecology during 1980-1981, and began the study after that
program was moved to Northwestern University. TIE had
sponsored an EIS monitoring project during the 1970s (cf.
Winder and Allen 1975, Cromwell et al. 1977), and we were
pleased to continue that work.
ix