An Examination of the Buckhorn-Mesa Watersheds Environmental Impact Statement (U.S.D.A., S.C.S., 1978): A Look at State-of-the-Art Reports

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/301181
Title:
An Examination of the Buckhorn-Mesa Watersheds Environmental Impact Statement (U.S.D.A., S.C.S., 1978): A Look at State-of-the-Art Reports
Author:
Altshul, Dale A.
Affiliation:
Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson
Issue Date:
13-Apr-1979
Rights:
Copyright ©, where appropriate, is held by the author.
Collection Information:
This article is part of the Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest collections. Digital access to this material is made possible by the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science and the University of Arizona Libraries. For more information about items in this collection, contact anashydrology@gmail.com.
Publisher:
Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science
Journal:
Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest
Abstract:
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was written with the intent of fostering a spirit of harmony in the day to day operations of Federal agencies with the environmental concerns voiced by the general populace. To examine how Federal agencies have assimilated E.I.S. procedures and guidelines a typical report was reviewed. In general, compliance with environmental law and procedural guidelines was found to be adequate. In some ways, particularly in assessment of Cultural Resource Impact, the statement was exceptional in its evaluation. However, the sections of the report detailing the benefits and costs of the alternatives was not up to the standards expected in an E.I.S. Because the benefits and costs were not calculated in consistent units and the no action alternative was not adequately examined, the entire alternatives section is called to question. By re-evaluating the data provided in the E.I.S. in consistent units, it was found that the alternative selected had neither the highest benefit/ cost ratio nor the lowest environmental impact. It is concluded that alternatives should be as fully evaluated as the project itself in order to integrate environmental considerations into the overall planning process.
Keywords:
Hydrology -- Arizona.; Water resources development -- Arizona.; Hydrology -- Southwestern states.; Water resources development -- Southwestern states.
ISSN:
0272-6106

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleAn Examination of the Buckhorn-Mesa Watersheds Environmental Impact Statement (U.S.D.A., S.C.S., 1978): A Look at State-of-the-Art Reportsen_US
dc.contributor.authorAltshul, Dale A.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentWater Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucsonen_US
dc.date.issued1979-04-13-
dc.rightsCopyright ©, where appropriate, is held by the author.en_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThis article is part of the Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest collections. Digital access to this material is made possible by the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science and the University of Arizona Libraries. For more information about items in this collection, contact anashydrology@gmail.com.en_US
dc.publisherArizona-Nevada Academy of Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.journalHydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwesten_US
dc.description.abstractThe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was written with the intent of fostering a spirit of harmony in the day to day operations of Federal agencies with the environmental concerns voiced by the general populace. To examine how Federal agencies have assimilated E.I.S. procedures and guidelines a typical report was reviewed. In general, compliance with environmental law and procedural guidelines was found to be adequate. In some ways, particularly in assessment of Cultural Resource Impact, the statement was exceptional in its evaluation. However, the sections of the report detailing the benefits and costs of the alternatives was not up to the standards expected in an E.I.S. Because the benefits and costs were not calculated in consistent units and the no action alternative was not adequately examined, the entire alternatives section is called to question. By re-evaluating the data provided in the E.I.S. in consistent units, it was found that the alternative selected had neither the highest benefit/ cost ratio nor the lowest environmental impact. It is concluded that alternatives should be as fully evaluated as the project itself in order to integrate environmental considerations into the overall planning process.en_US
dc.subjectHydrology -- Arizona.en_US
dc.subjectWater resources development -- Arizona.en_US
dc.subjectHydrology -- Southwestern states.en_US
dc.subjectWater resources development -- Southwestern states.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0272-6106-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/301181-
dc.identifier.journalHydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwesten_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeProceedingsen_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.